Effect of water temperature on cooling efficiency during hyperthermia in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the cooling rate of hyperthermic subjects, as measured by rectal temperature (T(re)), during immersion in a range of water temperatures. On 4 separate days, seven subjects (4 men, 3 women) exercised at 65% maximal oxygen consumption at an ambient temperature of 39 degrees C until T(re) increased to 40 degrees C (45.4 +/- 4.1 min). After exercise, the subjects were immersed in a circulated water bath controlled at 2, 8, 14, or 20 degrees C until T(re) returned to 37.5 degrees C. No difference in cooling rate was observed between the immersions at 8, 14, and 20 degrees C despite the differences in the skin surface-to-water temperature gradient, possibly because of the presence of shivering at 8 and 14 degrees C. Compared with the other conditions, however, the rate of cooling (0.35 +/- 0.14 degrees C/min) was significantly greater during the 2 degrees C water immersion, in which shivering was seldom observed. This rate was almost twice as much as the other conditions (P < 0.05). Our results suggest that 2 degrees C water is the most effective immersion treatment for exercise-induced hyperthermia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".