Core Temperature Estimation Using The CORETm Body Temperature Sensor During A 5 Km Running Time-trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring of core body temperature (CT) during exercise may be useful to optimize pacing and performance and prevent heat-related illnesses. Athletes are left with very few options when it comes to the measurement of CT during out-of-doors exercise conditions. Moreover, the available technology is either expensive or invasive, both of which are a deterrent to athletes. Recently, a non-invasive, affordable, wearable, compact, light, rechargeable and wireless thermal energy transfer sensor has been introduced into the market. When paired with heart rate, the manufacturer claims that the device can estimate CT with an accuracy of ±0.21 °C. PURPOSE: Compared measurements of CT obtained with a gastrointestinal pill (GP) to those estimated with the CORETM thermal energy transfer sensor during a sitting period followed by a running time-trial. METHODS: This is an ongoing study and preliminary findings are henceforth reported. Six participants (4 men, 2 women) aged 26 ± 4 yrs, with a fat-free mass (FFM) of 55 ± 8 kg, underwent a 120 min seated resting period at 20-21 °C followed by a 5 km running time-trial at 30 °C, 50% relative humidity. Participants ingested a GP 10 h prior to reporting to the laboratory. The CORETM sensor was worn according to the manufacture’s instructions, i.e., 20 cm below the armpit, and paired with a heart rate monitor. Following 20 min of sitting, participants ingested 7.5 mL/kg FFM of cold water (~ 4 °C). Measurements of CT were taken every 20 min during the sitting period and every min during the TT. RESULTS: Whereas according to the CORETM CT increased by 0.13 ± 0.08 °C during the sitting period, a decrease of 0.18 ± 0.11 °C was detected with GP. A mean bias (CORETM - GP) of - 0.22 °C at a CT of 37 °C with each additional increase in CT of 0.1 °C associated with an error of - 0.12 °C, were observed during the sitting period. A mean bias between devices of - 0.55 °C was observed during the time-trial. The mean rates of increase in CT during exercise were respectively of 0.07 ± 0.04 and 0.08 ± 0.04 °C/min for the CORETM and GP. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that, compared with measurements derived from a GP, the CORETM 1) underestimates both CT and the rate of change in CT during a sitting period comprising cold fluid ingestion and; 2) underestimates CT but adequately estimates the rate of change in CT during a 5 km time-trial in the heat.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".