Burn Injury Does Not Exacerbate Heat Strain during Exercise while Wearing Body Armor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although evaporative heat loss capacity is reduced in burn-injured individuals with extensive skin grafts, the thermoregulatory strain due to a prior burn injury during exercise-heat stress may be negligible if the burn is located underneath protective clothing with low vapor permeability. PURPOSE: This study aimed to test the hypothesis that heat strain during exercise in a hot-dry environment while wearing protective clothing would be similar with and without a simulated torso burn injury. METHODS: Ten healthy individuals (8 men/2 women) underwent three trials wearing: uniform (combat uniform, tactical vest, and replica torso armor plates), uniform with a 20% total body surface area simulated torso burn (uniform + burn), or shorts (and sports bra) only (control). Exercise consisted of treadmill walking (5.3 km·h; 3.7% ± 0.9% grade) for 60 min at a target heat production of 6.0 W·kg in 40.0°C ± 0.1°C and 20.0% ± 0.6% relative humidity conditions. Measurements included rectal temperature, heart rate, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and thermal sensation. RESULTS: No differences in rectal temperature (P ≥ 0.85), heart rate (P ≥ 0.99), thermal sensation (P ≥ 0.73), or RPE (P ≥ 0.13) occurred between uniform + burn and uniform trials. In the control trial, however, core temperature, heart rate, thermal sensation, and RPE were lower compared with the uniform and uniform + burn trials (P ≤ 0.04 for all). CONCLUSIONS: A 20% total body surface area simulated torso burn injury does not further exacerbate heat strain when wearing a combat uniform. These findings suggest that the physiological strain associated with torso burn injuries is not different from noninjured individuals when wearing protective clothing during an acute exercise-heat stress.
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".