Cold-Induced Vasodilation during Single Digit Immersion in 0°C and 8°C Water in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compared the thermal responses of the finger to 0 and 8°C water immersion, two commonly used temperatures for cold-induced vasodilation (CIVD) research. On two separate and counterbalanced occasions 15 male and 15 female participants immersed their index finger in 20°C water for 5 min followed by either 0 or 8°C water for 30 min. Skin temperature, cardiovascular and perceptual data were recorded. Secondary analyses were performed between sexes and comparing 0.5, 1 and 4°C CIVD amplitude thresholds. With a 0.5°C threshold, CIVD waves were more prevalent in 8°C (2 (1-3) than in 0°C (1.5 (0-3)), but the amplitude was lower (4.0 ± 2.3 v 9.2 ± 4.0°C). Mean, minimum and maximum finger temperatures were lower in 0°C during the 30 min immersion, and CIVD onset and peak time occurred later in 0°C. Thermal sensation was lower and pain sensation was higher in 0°C. There were no differences between males and females in any of the physiological or CIVD data with the exception of SBP, which was higher in males. Females reported feeling higher thermal sensations in 8°C and lower pain sensations in 0°C and 8°C compared to males. Fewer CIVD responses were observed when using a 4°C (1 (0-3)) threshold to quantify a CIVD wave compared to using a 1°C (2 (0-3)) or 0.5°C (2 (0-3)) amplitude. In conclusion, both 0 and 8 °C can elicit CIVD but 8°C may be more suitable when looking to optimise the number of CIVD waves while minimising participant discomfort. The CIVD response to water immersion does not appear to be influenced by sex. Researchers should consider the amplitude threshold that was used to determine a CIVD wave when interpreting previous data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".