Time following ingestion does not influence the validity of telemetry pill measurements of core temperature during exercise-heat stress: The journal <i>Temperature</i> toolbox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In studies of human thermoregulation, ingestible temperature pills are being increasingly used as a convenient alternative to more clinically relevant indices of deep-body (core) temperature (e.g., rectal temperature). It remains unclear whether the time between pill ingestion and the measurement period influences the validity of telemetry pills as a surrogate index of core temperature. We therefore assessed the influence of pill ingestion timing on the agreement between rectal temperature (criterion method) and ingestible pill temperature during exercise-heat stress. To achieve this, nine young men (21–31 years) completed two trials involving 15-min rest, 90-min exercise at an average metabolic heat production of 200 W/m2 (~40% peak oxygen consumption), and 45-min recovery. Core temperature was measured throughout using rectal temperature and four telemetric temperature pills (VitalSense®) ingested 12, 6, 3 and 1 h(s) prior to the start of each trial. Data from the two trials were combined and averaged over the final 10-min of rest, exercise, and recovery for analysis. Our primary finding was that the mean squared difference between rectal temperature and each pill did not differ significantly across ingestion times during rest, exercise or recovery (p = 0.056), with those errors ranging from 0.1–0.2°C, 0.2–0.2°C, 0.1–0.2°C, and 0.1–0.2°C for the pills ingested 12, 6, 3, and 1 h(s) before data collection, respectively. While there is a need for larger confirmatory studies, our findings indicate that pill ingestion timing does not significantly influence the validity of telemetry pill temperature as an index of core temperature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".