Cold-induced vasodilatation response in the fingers at 4 different water temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the cold-induced vasodilatation (CIVD) response at 4 different water temperatures. Nine healthy young male subjects immersed their right hands in 35 °C water for 5 min, and immediately thereafter for 30 min in a bath maintained at either 5, 8, 10, or 15 °C. The responses of finger skin temperatures, subjective ratings of thermal comfort and temperature sensation scores were compared between the 4 immersion trials. The number of subjects who exhibited a CIVD response was higher during immersion of the hand in 5 and 8 °C (100%) compared with 10 and 15 °C water (87.5% and 37.5%, respectively). The CIVD temperature amplitude was 4.2 ± 2.6, 3.4 ± 2.0, 2.1 ± 1.6, and 2.8 ± 2.0 °C at 5, 8, 10, and 15 °C trials, respectively; higher in 5 and 8 °C compared with 10 and 15 °C water (p = 0.003). No differences in CIVD were found between the 5 and 8 °C immersions. However, during immersion in 5 °C, subjects felt "uncomfortable" while in the other trials felt "slightly uncomfortable" (p = 0.005). The temperature sensation score was "cold" for 5 °C and "cool" for the other trials, but no statistical differences were observed. Immersion of the hand in 8 °C elicits a CIVD response of similar magnitude as immersion in 5 °C, but with less thermal discomfort.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".