MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742803776 · doi:10.1111/micc.12395

Between‐day reliability of local thermal hyperemia in the forearm and index finger using single‐point laser Doppler flowmetry

2017· article· en· W2742803776 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory W. McGarr, Gary J. Hodges, Stephen S. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrocirculation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsForearmLaser Doppler velocimetryReliability (semiconductor)MedicinePlateau (mathematics)Nuclear medicineSurgeryBlood flowBiomedical engineeringMathematicsCardiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To assess between‐day reliability for LTH in glabrous and nonglabrous index finger skin and nonglabrous forearm skin, with single‐point laser Doppler flowmetry. Methods Part‐1: In healthy, habitually active males (n=10), LTH was examined twice (~7‐10 days apart) for both skin types on the index finger. Part‐2: Identical testing was performed on the volar forearm. Local heating (33‐42°C at 1°C·20 s−1 + 20 minutes at 44°C) was performed at all skin sites and baseline, initial peak, and plateau phases were identified. Data were expressed as raw CVC (laser‐Doppler flux/MAP), and as CVC normalized to baseline (%CVC33°C) and maximum heating (%CVC44°C). Reliability was assessed using between‐day mean difference, %CV, and ICC. Results Reliability (%CV) was poor at baseline for all forms of data presentation and for other phases with %CVC33°C. At the initial peak and plateau, reliability was moderate‐poor (20%‐26%) for CVC and good‐moderate (6%‐18%) for %CVC44°C. Reliability was good‐moderate for vasodilatory onset time (10%‐23%) and time to initial peak (6%‐13%). Conclusions For all sites, LTH reliability was acceptable for the timing, and for the initial peak and plateau using CVC or %CVC44°C.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrocirculationSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207