The effects of cold stimulation and exercise on human health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cold stimulation and exercise are two independent stimulus variables, each yielding unique impacts on human health. However, in many cases, individuals often encounter both factors simultaneously, particularly in colder regions where outdoor physical activity is prevalent. Despite numerous studies exploring the effects of cold exposure and exercise independently, only a limited number of comprehensive reviews have evaluated their combined influence on health. This review aims to bridge this gap by meticulously examining the potential benefits and detriments of both cold stimulation and exercise on human health. Specifically, the review focuses on their impacts on cardiovascular, respiratory, and immune function, as well as the favorable effects of moderate exercise on the human body. While evidence suggests that cold exposure can enhance health outcomes in certain disease contexts, it also poses risks, particularly for vulnerable populations. Furthermore, while moderate exercise is generally beneficial, engaging in physical activity in cold weather conditions can increase the risk of hypothermia, frostbite, and other cold-related injuries. Consequently, there is an urgent need to develop safe and effective guidelines for exercising in cold weather, particularly for individuals living in colder regions. This review emphasizes the necessity for further research on the combined effects of cold stimulation and exercise, with the goal of informing public health policies and guidelines for physical activity in cold weather conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".