Oxygen absorption by skin exposed to oxygen supersaturated water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study tests the hypothesis that skin on the plantar surface of the foot absorbs oxygen (O(2)) when immersed in water that has a high dissolved O(2) content. Healthy male and female subjects (24.2 ± 1.4 years) soaked each foot in tap water (1.7 ± 0.1 mg O(2)·L(-1); 30.7 ± 0.3 °C) or O(2)-infused water (50.2 ± 1.7 mg O(2)·L(-1); 32.1 ± 0.5 °C) for up to 30 min in 50 different experiments. Transcutaneous oximetry and near infrared spectroscopy were used to evaluate changes in skin PO(2), oxygenated haemoglobin, and cytochrome oxidase aa(3) that resulted from treatment. Compared with the tap water condition, tissue oxygenation index was 3.5% ± 1.3% higher in feet treated for 30 min with O(2)-infused water. This effect persisted after treatment, as skin PO(2) was higher in feet treated with O(2)-infused water at 2 min (237 ± 9 vs. 112 ± 5 mm HG) and 15 min (131 ± 1 vs. 87 ± 4 mm HG) post-treatment. When blood flow to the foot was occluded for 5 min, feet resting in O(2)-infused water maintained a 3-fold higher O(2) consumption rate than feet treated with tap water (9.1 ± 1.4 vs. 3.0 ± 1.0 µL·100 g(-1)·min(-1)). We estimate that skin absorbs 4.5 mL of O(2)·m(-2)·min(-1) from O(2)-infused water. Thus, skin absorbs appreciable amounts of O(2) from O(2)-infused water. This finding may prove useful and assist development of treatments targeting skin diseases with ischemic origin.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".