Single-digit cold-induced vasodilation adaptations during an Antarctic expedition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An increasing number of people are spending time in Polar Regions for work and tourism and this can increase the risk of tissue injuries, e.g. frostbite. The risk would be reduced if beneficial peripheral blood flow adaptions occurred but data regarding the trainability of the cold-induced vasodilation (CIVD) response are equivocal. Five healthy males spent almost 8 months in Antarctica; five of them at a semi-permanent camp (− 44 °C; 2752 m). CIVD tests (30 min index finger immersion into 0 °C water) were performed on the 12th, 39–40th, 67–68th, 179th and 234th days of the expedition in a climate-controlled caboose. Heart rate (HR), thermal sensation of the finger, pain sensation, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded. Minimum, maximum, and mean finger temperature were greater, onset time was earlier (r = 0.34), and amplitude was greater (r = 0.55) on day 234 than day 12 suggesting that adaptation occurred. Time-point data suggested that the adaptations were progressive. Cardiovascular and perceptual data also showed some adaptation. MAP was lower on day 234 than day 12 (r = 0.47 and r = 0.47) but mean HR was higher (r = 0.55). Mean and peak thermal sensation (r = 0.31–0.59; r = 0.31) and perceived pain (r = 0.58; r = 0.36) both improved over the course of the expedition. Of interest to Polar Region visitors, beneficial peripheral and perceptual adaptations to prolonged Antarctic exposure can occur with 2 h of daily outdoor exposure although the rates at which adaptation occurs differ.
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) | 0.001 | 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".