MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984788720 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-45.5.439

Cold-Water Immersion and the Treatment of Hyperthermia: Using 38.6°C as a Safe Rectal Temperature Cooling Limit

2010· article· en· W1984788720 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Gagnon, Bruno B. Lemire, Douglas J. Casa, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsImmersion (mathematics)Rectal temperatureHyperthermiaMedicineAnimal scienceAnesthesiaHeat illnessSurgeryInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Cold-water immersion is recommended for the immediate field treatment of exertional heat stroke. However, concerns exist over potential overcooling of hyperthermic individuals during cold-water immersion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the recommendation that removing previously hyperthermic individuals from a cold-water bath at a rectal temperature (T(re)) of 38.6°C would attenuate overcooling. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 6 men and 4 women (age = 22 ± 3 years, height = 172 ± 10 cm, mass = 67.8 ± 10.7 kg, body fat percentage = 17.1% ± 4.5%, maximum oxygen consumption = 59.3 ± 8.7 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)). INTERVENTION(S): After exercising at an ambient temperature of 40.0°C for 38.5 ± 9.4 minutes, until T(re) reached 39.5°C, participants were immersed in a 2.0°C circulated water bath until T(re) decreased to either 37.5°C or 38.6°C. Subsequently, participants were removed from the water bath and recovered for 20 minutes at an ambient temperature of 25°C. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Rectal and esophageal temperatures were measured continuously during the immersion and recovery periods. RESULTS: Because of the experimental design, the overall time of immersion was greater during the 37.5°C trial (16.6 ± 5.7 minutes) than the 38.6°C trial (8.8 ± 2.6 minutes) (t(9) = -4.740, P = .001). During the recovery period after cold-water immersion, both rectal (F(1,9) = 50.540, P < .001) and esophageal (F(1,6) = 20.365, P = .007) temperatures remained greater in the 38.6°C trial than in the 37.5°C trial. This was evidenced by low points of 36.47°C ± 0.70°C and 37.19°C ± 0.71°C for rectal temperature (t(9) = 2.975, P = .016) and of 35.67°C ± 1.27°C and 36.72°C ± 0.95°C for esophageal temperature (t(6) = 3.963, P = .007) during the recovery period of the 37.5°C and 38.6°C trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Immersion for approximately 9 minutes to a rectal temperature cooling limit of 38.6°C negated any risk associated with overcooling hyperthermic individuals when they were immersed in 2°C water.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207