Circadian rhythm of temperature in head injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown in a previous study that head injured patients appear to have a circadian rhythm of their body functions. This needed to be confirmed using additional data, better collection methods and analysis. Additional goals were to develop a method of detrending of physiological time series in order to improve rhythm detection when it may be hidden behind a low frequency trend and the creation of a computer system for data acquisition and analysis. The temperature data of 10 head injured patients was studied using the Iterative Cosinor method. In one case, prior to the Cosinor method, detrending of the data was used using a specially designed polynomial fitting technique. The Iterative Cosinor method showed circadian rhythms in nine out of 10 patients. After detrending, a rhythm was found in the data of the 10th patient as well. The periods of the rhythm were around, but were not equal to, 24 hours. The results show that comatose head injured patients have a circadian rhythm of their core temperature. The detection of a circadian rhythm may, in some cases, be improved by using a detrending technique. The deviation of the rhythm period from 24 hours suggests that the rhythms found in these patients are free-running, meaning that head injured patients are not synchronized with their surroundings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".