Ski-Everest (8848 m) Expedition: Digit Skin Temperature Responses to Cold Immersion May Reflect Susceptibility to Cold Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We tested the hypothesis that individual susceptibility to freezing cold injury might be reflected in an attenuated cold-induced vasodilatation (CIVD) response by comparing the CIVD responses of an elite alpinist with a history of freezing cold injury in the feet (case alpinist) with those of an age- and ability- matched noninjured alpinists control group (controls). According to this hypothesis, the vasomotor responses to a CIVD test of the case alpinist would represent a pathophysiological response when compared with the normal physiological response of a noninjured cohort. METHODS: The case alpinist and the controls in the cohort group conducted a cold water immersion test comprising sequential immersion of a hand and foot for 5 min in 35°C water, followed by a 30-min immersion in 8°C water and a 10-min recovery period in room air. During this test we monitored the finger and toe skin temperatures. RESULTS: The case alpinist had a significantly attenuated CIVD response and a lower skin temperature in all injured and noninjured digits during immersion (∼2°C lower than in the control group) and an attenuated recovery of finger skin temperatures (∼6°C lower than in the control group). CONCLUSIONS: The attenuated CIVD response of the case alpinist may reflect a previously unrecognized enhanced susceptibility to frostbite. In addition to the poor vasomotor response observed in the injured toes, he also exhibited a poor vasomotor response in his noninjured fingers. The results of the present study indicate that a test of vasomotor activity during thermal stress may identify individuals predisposed to cold injury.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".