Short Term Sensory and Cutaneous Vascular Responses to Cold Water Immersion in Patients with Distal Radius Fracture (DRF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design: Repeated Measures.Objectives: To determine the short term impact of cold water immersion on sensory and vascular functions in patients with Distal Radius Fracture (DRF) and compare responses in the injured and uninjured hands.Background: Cold exposure is used to assess neurovascular function.Cold is also used as therapeutic agent to reduce pain and swelling.There is a scarcity of trials that have looked at the impact of cold exposure in patients with DRF.Methods: Twenty patients with DRF, aged 18 to 65 yrs.were recruited after cast removal.All patients underwent Immersion in Cold water Evaluation (ICE) which consisted of 5 min of hand immersion in water at 12°C.Skin Blood Flow (SBF) in hands, Skin Temperature (S Temp.) in index and little fingers and sensory Perception Thresholds (sPT) at 2000Hz (for Aβ fiber) and 5 Hz (for C fiber) were obtained from ring finger, before ICE, immediately after (0 min, 1 min) and 10 min later.Differences were analyzed using repeated measures.Results: In the DRF hand, SBF increased immediately (Mean Difference = -42.2A.U), at 1 min (-35 A.U) and 10 min after ICE (-1 A.U). Skin Temp.In index and little fingers decreased immediately after ICE (9.9°C and 9.1° C) and did not return to baseline by 10 min (4°C and 4.1°C).ICE had no effect on sPT at 5 Hz (p>0.05).There was no difference between the DRF and uninjured hand on all measures(p>0.05)except for the sPT at 2000Hz, which remained high on the DRF side for up to 10 min (-1.8 m.A).Conclusion: Normal cold responses consistent with 'hunting reaction' were observed after ICE in both hands.Aβ fibers on DRF side became less sensitive after ICE.These findings suggest that a brief immersion in cold water does not produce any adverse events associated with cold exposure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".