The effects of cranial cooling during recovery on subsequent uncompensable heat stress tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared cranial (CC) with passive (CON) cooling during recovery on tolerance to subsequent exercise while wearing firefighting protective ensemble and self-contained breathing apparatus in a hot-humid environment. Eleven males (mean ± SD; age, 30.9 ± 9.2 years; peak oxygen consumption, 49.5 ± 5.1 mL · kg(-1) · min(-1)) performed 2 × 20 min treadmill walks (5.6 km · h(-1), 4% incline) in 35 °C and 60% relative humidity. During a 20-min recovery (rest), participants sat and removed gloves, helmets, and flash hoods but otherwise remained encapsulated. A close-fitting liquid-perfused hood pumped 13 °C water at ∼ 500 mL · min(-1) through the head and neck (CC) or no cooling hood was worn (CON). During rest, neck temperature was lower in CC compared with CON from 4 min (CC: 35.73 ± 3.28 °C, CON: 37.66 ± 1.35 °C, p = 0.025) until the end (CC: 33.06 ± 4.70 °C, CON: 36.85 ± 1.63 °C, p = 0.014). Rectal temperature rose in both CC (0.11 ± 0.19 °C) and CON (0.26 ± 0.15 °C) during rest, with nonsignificant interaction between conditions (p = 0.076). Perceived thermal stress was lower (p = 0.006) from 5 min of CC (median: 3 (quartile 1: 3, quartile 3: 4)) until the end of rest compared with CON (median: 4 (quartile 1: 4, quartile 3: 4)). However, there were no significant differences (p = 0.906) in tolerance times during the second exercise between CC (16.55 ± 1.14 min) and CON (16.60 ± 1.31 min), nor were there any difference in rectal temperature at the start (CC: 38.30 ± 0.40 °C, CON: 38.40 ± 0.16 °C, p = 0.496) or at the end (CC: 38.82 ± 0.23 °C, CON: 39.07 ± 0.22 °C, p = 0.173). With high ambient heat and encapsulation, cranial and neck cooling during recovery decreases physiological strain and perceived thermal stress, but is ineffective in improving subsequent uncompensable heat stress tolerance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".