Central versus peripheral mechanisms of cold-induced vasodilation: a study in the fingers and toes of people with paraplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined physiological and perceptual parameters related to cold-induced vasodilation (CIVD) in the fingers and toes of people with paraplegia and compared them with responses observed in able-bodied individuals. METHODS: Seven participants with paraplegia and seven able-bodied individuals participated in a randomized matched-controlled study involving left-hand and -foot immersion in cold water (8 ± 1 °C) for 40 min during exposure to cool (16 ± 1 °C), thermoneutral (23 ± 1 °C), and hot (34 ± 1 °C) ambient conditions. RESULTS: Similar CIVD occurrence was observed in the fingers in the two groups. In toes, three of the seven participants with paraplegia revealed CIVDs: one in cool, two in thermoneutral, and three in hot conditions. No able-bodied participants revealed CIVDs in cool and thermoneutral conditions, while four revealed CIVDs in hot conditions. The toe CIVDs of paraplegic participants were counterintuitive in several respects: they were more frequent in cool and thermoneutral conditions (compared to the able-bodied participants), emerged in these conditions despite lower core and skin temperatures of these participants, and were evident only in cases of thoracic level lesions (instead of lesions at lower spinal levels). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated considerable inter-individual variability in CIVD responses in both the paraplegic and able-bodied groups. While we observed vasodilatory responses in the toes of participants with paraplegia that technically fulfilled the criteria for CIVD, it is unlikely that they reflect the CIVD phenomenon observed in able-bodied individuals. Taken together, our findings favor the contribution of central over peripheral factors in relation to the origin and/or control of CIVD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".