MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validation of a Portable and Inexpensive Method for Assessing Sweat Sodium Concentration

2015· article· en· W2471005730 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew S. Palmer, Christopher Gerling

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSWEATSodiumChemistryRelative humidityChromatographySweat glandDehydrationMedicineInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate assessment of sweat sodium concentration is useful for the treatment of skeletal muscle cramps during exercise, minimizing exercise-induced dehydration, and restoring fluid balance after exercise. However, most methods of sweat sodium analysis require the use of specialized and expensive equipment, and are not readily available to the majority of recreational, elite and professional athletes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of capillary action salt-water testing strips (SS) to accurately measure known [Na] standards, and unknown human sweat [Na] samples. METHODS: The SS used in this study were intended for use in salt-water pools, and indicated [Na] by colour change on a numerical scale. Ten SS were submerged in each of 4 salt-water standards (25, 50, 75, 100 mM [Na]) until the reading had stabilized (6 ± 0 min), and 3 SS served as control (CON; 0 mM [Na]). SS readings were compared to the true [Na] of each aliquot, which was determined by conductivity analysis (WESCOR). Human sweat samples were collected by absorbent patch from the foreheads of 10 subjects (Mean ± SE; 27 ± 1 years, 1.8 ± 0.0 m, 68.6 ± 4.6 kg) during 25 ± 1 min of moderate intensity cycling at 21.2 ± 0.3°C and 26 ± 0% relative humidity. Samples were extracted from the patches by centrifugation, [Na] was determined by WESCOR in a small (5-10 μL) aliquot, and SS were submerged in the remaining sample for 8 ± 2 min. Comparisons of SS and WESCOR measurements were made with Student’s paired t-tests and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: SS underestimated [Na] vs. WESCOR in 25 mM (21 ± 1 vs. 24 ± 1 mM, p < 0.05), 50 mM (41 ± 2 vs. 46 ± 0 mM, p < 0.05) and 75 mM standards (67 ± 3 vs. 71 ± 1 mM, p < 0.05), but was similar in the 100 mM standard (90 ± 4 vs. 90 ± 1 mM). This underestimation was inversely related to [Na] and could be corrected (Correction = −0.002*SS + 1.212, r = 0.99, p < 0.05). In human sweat samples, SS underestimated [Na] (64 ± 6 vs. 78 ± 7 mM, p < 0.05). The underestimation was also related to [Na] (r = 0.75, p < 0.05), and SS measurements could be corrected (Correction = −0.005*SS + 1.75). The SS underestimation of human sweat [Na] was not related to body mass, sweat sample volume or exercise time. CONCLUSIONS: SS consistently underestimated WESCOR [Na] measurements, but the error was inversely proportional to [Na] and predictable for both known standards and unknown human sweat samples. SS could provide a valid method of assessing sweat [Na] for athletes without access to more expensive alternatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207