The Influence of Ingestion Time on the Validity of Gastrointestinal Pill Temperature as an Index of Body Core Temperature During Work in the Heat
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ingestible, telemetric pills are increasingly used to estimate body core temperature from the gastrointestinal tract when gold‐standard measurements (e.g., rectal temperature) are unfeasible. While gastrointestinal temperature has been shown to provide acceptable validity, it has been suggested that the time between pill ingestion and the measurement period can influence the precision of those estimates, with sensors spending a greater time in the gastrointestinal tract providing better agreement with rectal temperature. However, a within‐subjects comparison of the effects of various sensor ingestion times on the validity of gastrointestinal temperature as an index of body core temperature during steady‐state and variable‐intensity exercise (more reflective of occupational tasks) is currently unavailable. We therefore sought to quantify the agreement between rectal temperature and gastrointestinal temperatures measured from telemetric pill sensors ingested at various periods prior to exercise in the heat. On two separate occasions, six young (mean±SD; 27±4 years) males consumed a telemetric pill sensor (Vital Sense capsule thermometer; Mini Mitter, Bend, OR) 12, 6, 3 and 1 hour(s) prior to arriving at the laboratory. Thereafter, participants performed 15‐min seated rest followed by 90‐min of either constant or variable intensity cycling eliciting an average rate of metabolic heat production of ~200 W/m 2 and a 45‐min recovery, in hot, dry conditions (40°C, ~20% relative humidity). Metabolic heat production as well as rectal and gastrointestinal temperatures were measured continuously (1 min intervals). Agreement between pairs of measurements from each pill sensor and the criterion (rectal temperature) were assessed by the residual mean square error and the percentage of data points exceeding a meaningful threshold of acceptance (±0.25°C). Individual rectal temperature ranged between 36.62–38.43°C, while gastrointestinal temperature ranged between 36.51–38.32°C, 36.46–38.46°C, 36.29–38.34°C and 36.19–38.32°C for the sensors ingested 12, 6, 3 and 1 hour(s) prior to work in the heat (respectively) across both trials. During the constant work trial, the residual mean square error for each sensor averaged 0.12±0.10°C (12 hours), 0.14±0.11°C (6 hours), 0.12±0.09°C (3 hours) and 0.13±0.11°C (1 hour), with 13±16 %, 17±21 %, 11±14 % and 8±9 % of measurements exceeding the predefined acceptance threshold (±0.25°C). Residual square errors averaged 0.18±0.12°C (12 hours), 0.14±0.12°C (6 hours), 0.19±0.16°C (3 hours) and 0.14±0.10°C (1 hour) during the variable work trial, while 27±28 %, 14±15 %, 28±24 % and 14±7 % of measurements exceeding the predefined acceptance threshold. These preliminary outcomes indicate that ingestion times ranging between 12‐1 hour(s) prior to use do not demonstrably modify the precision of estimates of body core temperature from the gastrointestinal tract during either constant or variable work of moderate intensity under hot, dry conditions, with 72–92% of measurements falling within an acceptable error range. Support or Funding Information Funded by the Government of Ontario and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».