Burn size and environmental conditions modify thermoregulatory responses to exercise in burn survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project tested the hypothesis that burn survivors can perform mild/moderate-intensity exercise in temperate and hot environments without excessive elevations in core body temperature. Burn survivors with low (23 ± 5%TBSA; N = 11), moderate (40 ± 5%TBSA; N = 9), and high (60 ± 8%TBSA; N = 9) burn injuries performed 60 minutes of cycle ergometry exercise (72 ± 15 watts) in a 25°C and 23% relative humidity environment (ie, temperate) and in a 40°C and 21% relative humidity environment (ie, hot). Absolute gastrointestinal temperatures (TGI) and changes in TGI (ΔTGI) were obtained. Participants with an absolute TGI of >38.5°C and/or a ΔTGI of >1.5°C were categorized as being at risk for hyperthermia. For the temperate environment, exercise increased ΔTGI in all groups (low: 0.72 ± 0.21°C, moderate: 0.42 ± 0.22°C, and high: 0.77 ± 0.25°C; all P < .01 from pre-exercise baselines), resulting in similar absolute end-exercise TGI values (P = .19). Importantly, no participant was categorized as being at risk for hyperthermia, based upon the aforementioned criteria. For the hot environment, ΔTGI at the end of the exercise bout was greater for the high group when compared to the low group (P = .049). Notably, 33% of the moderate cohort and 56% of the high cohort reached or exceeded a core temperature of 38.5°C, while none in the low cohort exceeded this threshold. These data suggest that individuals with a substantial %TBSA burned can perform mild/moderate intensity exercise for 60 minutes in temperate environmental conditions without risk of excessive elevations in TGI. Conversely, the risk of excessive elevations in TGI during mild/moderate intensity exercise in a hot environment increases with the %TBSA burned.
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".