MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072747504 · doi:10.1080/10903120902935348

Field Torso-Warming Modalities: A Comparative Study Using a Human Model

2009· article· en· W2072747504 on OpenAlexaff
Jakob Lundgren, Otto Henriksson, Thea Pretorius, Farrell Cahill, Gerald Bristow, Alecs Chochinov, Alexander Pretorius, Ulf Björnstig, Gordon G. Giesbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShiveringTorsoAnesthesiaHypothermiaCore temperatureAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare four field-appropriate torso-warming modalities that do not require alternating-current (AC) electrical power, using a human model of nonshivering hypothermia. METHODS: Five subjects, serving as their own controls, were cooled four times in 8 degrees C water for 10-30 minutes. Shivering was inhibited by buspirone (30 mg) taken orally prior to cooling and intravenous (IV) meperidine (1.25 mg/kg) at the end of immersion. Subjects were hoisted out of the water, dried, and insulated and then underwent 120 minutes of one of the following: spontaneous warming only; a charcoal heater on the chest; two flexible hot-water bags (total 4 liters of water at 55 degrees C, replenished every 20 minutes) applied to the chest and upper back; or two chemical heating pads applied to the chest and upper back. Supplemental meperidine (maximum cumulative dose of 3.5 mg/kg) was administered as required to inhibit shivering. RESULTS: The postcooling afterdrop (i.e., the continued decrease in body core temperature during the early period of warming), compared with spontaneous warming (2.2 degrees C), was less for the chemical heating pads (1.5 degrees C) and the hot-water bags (1.6 degrees C, p < 0.05) and was 1.8 degrees C for the charcoal heater. Subsequent core rewarming rates for the hot-water bags (0.7 degree C/h) and the charcoal heater (0.6 degree C/h) tended to be higher than that for the chemical heating pads (0.2 degree C/h) and were significantly higher than that for spontaneous warming rate (0.1 degrees C/h, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In subjects with shivering suppressed, greater sources of external heat were effective in attenuating core temperature afterdrop, whereas sustained sources of external heat effectively established core rewarming. Depending on the scenario and available resources, we recommend the use of charcoal heaters, chemical heating pads, or hot-water bags as effective means for treating cold patients in the field or during transport to definitive care.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital Emergency CareSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207