MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914456269 · doi:10.1016/j.wem.2018.11.005

Efficacy of Head and Torso Rewarming Using a Human Model for Severe Hypothermia

2019· article· en· W2914456269 on OpenAlex
Kartik Kulkarni, Erik Hildahl, Ramesh Dutta, Sandra C. Webber, Steven Passmore, Gerren K. McDonald, Gordon G. Giesbrecht

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWilderness and Environmental Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsTorsoShiveringHypothermiaMedicineAnesthesiaCore temperatureCore (optical fiber)Head (geology)Materials scienceAnatomyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the rewarming effectiveness of a similar amount of heat (from a charcoal heater) applied to either the head or torso in a human model for severe hypothermia in which shivering is pharmacologically inhibited in mildly hypothermic subjects. METHODS: ) was administered as required during rewarming to suppress shivering. RESULTS: ). During the last 30 min of rewarming the net heat gain was significantly higher in the head (85.8±25.3 W) and torso (81.5±6.3 W) conditions compared with the spontaneous condition (56.9±12 W) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, head and torso warming had the same core rewarming rates when shivering was pharmacologically inhibited in mildly hypothermic subjects. Therefore, in nonshivering cold subjects, head warming is a viable alternative if torso warming is contraindicated (eg, when performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation or working on open chest wounds).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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