Local Pressure Application Effects on Discomfort, Temperature, and Limb Oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite significant investment into the development and improvement of military helicopter seat systems, military aviators continue to report seat system related pain and discomfort during prolonged missions. METHODS: Using a factorial repeated measures design, 15 healthy subjects completed the study, in which focal pressure was applied to two locations on the sitting surfaces of the body (ischial tuberosity and middle of the posterior thigh). Pressure was applied using a purpose-built pressure application system allowing subjects to sit in a position mimicking the sitting position in the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. The researchers measured pain using the Category Partitioning Scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire and vascular function using dynamic infrared thermography in the lower leg and pulse oximetry at the great toe. Data were collected before and during a 10-min application of focal pressure applied to either the ischial tuberosity or middle of the posterior thigh and at two different pressure magnitudes (36 or 44 kPa). RESULTS: We found that during a 10-min pressure application, superficial skin temperature increased by 0.61°C, suggesting a decreased venous return during pressure application. We found that lower extremity blood oxygenation remained unchanged during pressure application. Subjects' reported pain increased during pressure application and was greater with 44 kPa of application compared to 36 kPa. DISCUSSION: These results support the hypothesis that locally high pressure creates symptoms of discomfort and paresthesia. Research examining the effects of local pressure application on physiological and neurological function is needed. Games KE, Lakin JM, Quindry JC, Weimar WH, Sefton JM. Local pressure application effects on discomfort, temperature, and limb oxygenation. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2016; 87(8):697-703.
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) | 0.004 | 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".