Between‐day reliability of local thermal hyperemia in the forearm and index finger using single‐point laser Doppler flowmetry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (% CVC 33°C ) and maximum heating (% CVC 44°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 % CVC 33°C . At the initial peak and plateau, reliability was moderate‐poor (20%‐26%) for CVC and good‐moderate (6%‐18%) for % CVC 44°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 % CVC 44°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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it