Exploring the mechanisms underpinning sweating: the development of a specialized ventilated capsule for use with intradermal microdialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have aimed to identify the controllers of sweating using ventilated capsules with intradermal microdialysis. It is unclear, however, if the surface area covered by the capsule influences the observed response as a result of differences in the number of sweat glands affected by the infused pharmacological agent relative to the total glands captured by the capsule. We evaluated the area of skin perfused with agents delivered via microdialysis. Thereafter, we developed a specialized sweat capsule (1.1 cm(2)) and compared the sweating response with a classic capsule (2.8 cm(2)). InProtocol 1(n = 6), methacholine was delivered to forearm skin in a dose-dependent manner (1-2000 mmol L(-1)). The area of activated sweat glands was assessed via the modified iodine-paper technique. InProtocol 2(n = 6), the area of inhibited sweat glands induced by ouabain and atropine was assessed during moderate-intensity cycling. Marked variability in the affected skin area was observed (0.9 ± 0.4 to 5.2 ± 1.1 cm(2)). InProtocol 3(n = 6), we compared the attenuation in local sweat rate (LSR) induced by atropine between the new and classic capsule during moderate-intensity cycling. Atropine attenuated sweating as assessed using the new (control: 0.87 ± 0.23 mg min(-1) cm(-2)vs. atropine: 0.54 ± 0.22 mg min(-1) cm(-2);P < 0.01) and classic (control: 0.85 ± 0.33 mg min(-1) cm(-2)vs. atropine: 0.60 ± 0.26 mg min(-1) cm(-2);P = 0.05) capsule designs. Importantly, responses did not differ between capsule designs (P = 0.23). These findings provide critical information regarding the skin surface area perfused by microdialysis and suggest that use of a larger capsule does not alter the mechanistic insight into the sweating response gained when using microdialysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".