Effect of a patent foramen ovale in humans on thermal responses to passive cooling and heating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans with a patent foramen ovale (PFO) have a higher esophageal temperature (Tesoph) than humans without a PFO (PFO−). Thus the presence of a PFO might also be associated with differences in thermal responsiveness to passive cooling and heating such as shivering and hyperpnea, respectively. The purpose of this study was to determine whether thermal responses to passive cooling and heating are different between PFO− subjects and subjects with a PFO (PFO+). We hypothesized that compared with PFO− subjects PFO+ subjects would cool down more rapidly and heat up slower and that PFO+ subjects who experienced thermal hyperpnea would have a blunted increase in ventilation. Twenty-seven men (13 PFO+) completed two trials separated by >48 h: 1) 60 min of cold water immersion (19.5 ± 0.9°C) and 2) 30 min of hot water immersion (40.5 ± 0.2°C). PFO+ subjects had a higher Tesoph before and during cold water and hot water immersion ( P < 0.05). However, the rate of temperature change was similar between groups for each condition. Within a subset of 18 subjects (8 PFO+) who experienced thermal hyperpnea, PFO+ subjects experienced thermal hyperpnea at a higher absolute Tesoph but with a blunted magnitude compared with PFO− subjects. These data suggest that PFO+ subjects have a higher Tesoph at rest and have blunted thermal hyperpnea during passive heating. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is found in ~25–40% of the population. The presence of a PFO appears to be associated with a greater core body temperature and blunted ventilatory responses during passive heating. The reason for this blunted ventilatory response to passive heating is unknown but may suggest differences in thermal sensitivity in PFO+ subjects compared with PFO− subjects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".