MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961353318 · doi:10.1093/milmed/usz164

Comparison of Electric Resistive Heating Pads and Forced-Air Warming for Pre-hospital Warming of Non-shivering Hypothermic Subjects

2019· article· en· W2961353318 on OpenAlexaff
Daryl M.G. Hurrie, Emily A. Hildebrand, Scott M Arnould, Jeremy Plett, Daniel de Lima Bellan, Angela Buchel, Gordon G. Giesbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShiveringMedicineHypothermiaAnesthesiaForced-airCore temperatureThermoregulationWarm frontMeteorologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Victims of severe hypothermia require external rewarming, as self-rewarming through shivering heat production is either minimal or absent. The US Military commonly uses forced-air warming in field hospitals, but these systems require significant power (600-800 W) and are not portable. This study compared the rewarming effectiveness of an electric resistive heating pad system (requiring 80 W) to forced-air rewarming on cold subjects in whom shivering was pharmacologically inhibited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Shivering was inhibited by intravenous meperidine (1.5 mg/kg), administered during the last 10 min of cold-water immersion. Subjects then exited from the cold water, were dried and lay on a rescue bag for 120 min in one of the following conditions: spontaneous rewarming only (rescue bag closed); electric resistive heating pads (EHP) wrapped from the anterior to posterior torso (rescue bag closed); or, forced-air warming (FAW) over the anterior surface of the body (rescue bag left open and cotton blanket draped over warming blanket). Supplemental meperidine (to a maximum cumulative dose of 3.3 mg/kg) was administered as required during rewarming to suppress shivering. RESULTS: Six healthy subjects (3 m, 3 f) were cooled on three different occasions, each in 8°C water to an average nadir core temperature of 34.4 ± 0.6°C (including afterdrop). There were no significant differences between core rewarming rates (spontaneous; 0.6 ± 0.3, FAW; 0.7 ± 0.2, RHP; 0.6 ± 0.2°C/h) or post-cooling afterdrop (spontaneous; 1.9 ± 0.4, FAW; 1.9 ± 0.3, RHP; 1.6 ± 0.2°C) in any of the 3 conditions. There were also no significant differences between metabolic heat production (S; 74 ± 20, FAW; 66 ± 12, RHP; 63 ± 9 W). Total heat gain was greater with FAW (36 W gain) than EHP (13 W gain) and spontaneous (13 W loss) warming (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Total heat gain was greater in FAW than both EHP, and spontaneous rewarming conditions, however, there were no observed differences found in rewarming rates, post-cooling afterdrop or metabolic heat production. The electric heat pad system provided similar rewarming performance to a forced-air warming system commonly used in US military field hospitals for hypothermic patients. A battery-powered version of this system would not only relieve pressure on the field hospital power supply but could also potentially allow extending use to locations closer to the field of operations and during transport. Such a system could be studied in larger groups in prospective trials on colder patients.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207