No association between hand and foot temperature responses during local cold stress and rewarming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to examine whether associations exist between temperature responses in the fingers vs. toes and hand vs. foot during local cold-water immersion and rewarming phases. METHODS: Seventy healthy subjects (58 males, 12 females) immersed their right hand or right foot, respectively, in 8 °C water for 30 min (CWI phase), followed by a 15-min spontaneous rewarming (RW) in 25 °C air temperature. RESULTS: Temperature was lower in the toes than the fingers during the baseline phase (27.8 ± 3.0 vs. 33.9 ± 2.5 °C, p < 0.001), parts of the CWI phase (min 20-30: 8.8 ± 0.7 vs. 9.7 ± 1.4 °C, p < 0.001), and during the RW phase (peak temperature: 22.5 ± 5.1 vs. 32.7 ± 3.6 °C, p < 0.001). Cold-induced vasodilatation (CIVD) was more common in the fingers than in the toes (p < 0.001). Within the first 10 min of CWI, 61% of the subjects exhibited a CIVD response in the fingers, while only 6% of the subjects had a CIVD response in the toes. There was a large variability of temperature responses both within and between extremities, and there was a weak correlation between finger- and toe temperature both during the CWI (r = 0.21, p = 0.08) and the RW phases (r = 0.26, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that there is generally a lower temperature in the toes than the fingers after a short time of local cold exposure and that the thermal responses of the fingers/hands are not readily transferable to the toes/foot.
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) | 0.002 | 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".