MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081015738 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0b013e31826c32c0

Effect of Human Skin Grafts on Whole-Body Heat Loss During Exercise Heat Stress

2012· article· en· W2081015738 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew S. Ganio, Daniel Gagnon, Jill M. Stapleton, Craig G. Crandall, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineRelative humidityHeat stressThermoregulationTotal body surface areaBody surface areaSurgeryAnimal scienceInternal medicineBiologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When exposed to heat stress, increases in cutaneous blood flow and sweating in well-healed grafted skin are severely attenuated, which could impair whole-body heat loss if skin grafts cover a large portion of total body surface area (TBSA). It is unknown to what extent whole-body heat loss is impaired when skin grafts cover a significant (eg, >50%) proportion of TBSA. The authors examined whole-body heat exchange during and after 60 min of cycling exercise in the heat (35°C; 25% relative humidity), at a fixed rate of metabolic heat production (~400 W) in a woman (age, 36 years; mass, 78.2 kg) with well-healed (17+ years) skin grafts covering 75% of TBSA. Her responses were compared with two noninjured control subjects. Whole-body evaporative and dry heat exchange were measured by direct calorimetry. While exercising in the same ambient conditions and at the same rate of heat production, relative evaporative heat loss of nongrafted skin in the grafted subject (ie, evaporative heat loss per m) was nearly twice that of the control subjects. However, total rate of evaporative heat loss reached only 59% of the amount required for heat balance in the skin-grafted subject compared with 92 ± 3% in controls. Thus, the increase in core temperature was 2-fold greater for the grafted (1.22°C) vs control (0.61 ± 0.19°C) individuals. This case study demonstrates that a large area of grafted skin greatly diminishes maximum evaporative heat loss during exercise in the heat, making a compensable environment for control subjects uncompensable for skin-grafted individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207