MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validity Of A Humidity Ramp Protocol For Identifying Environmental Limits Of Human Thermoregulatory Compensability

2024· article· en· W4402661890 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert D. Meade, Fergus K. O'Connor, Brodie J. Richards, Emily J. Tetzlaff, Katie E. Wagar, Roberto C. Harris‐Mostert, Theodore Egube, James J. McCormick, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumidityEnvironmental scienceProtocol (science)Computer scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyMedicineMeteorologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work suggests that environmental limits for human thermoregulatory compensability occur at <32 °C wet bulb temperature (Tw), considerably lower than the theorized 35 °C threshold. Newly proposed empirical limits were estimated from Tw at the point of core temperature inflection in young adults exposed to ramping air temperature (Ta) or relative humidity (RH). Despite their growing use, however, the validity of ramp protocols has not been established. PURPOSE: We assessed whether heat balance and stable core temperature (compensability) are achieved below but not above the core temperature inflection point. METHODS: Twelve adults (3 females, median (IQR) age: 28 (25-31) yrs) completed a ramp protocol in which Ta was held at 42 °C while RH was increased 3% every 10 min (28 to 70%). The critical Tw for compensability was estimated from the esophageal temperature inflection point. Participants then completed 3 randomized exposures on separate days. In two of these, participants rested in 42 °C Ta while Tw was increased to and then held at ~1.3 °C (~6% RH) above or below their predetermined critical value (TAbove and TBelow). The third was a control condition (28 °C Ta, 35% RH). Exposure continued until participants requested to stop, rectal temperature (Tre) exceeded 39.2 °C, or 9 h elapsed. RESULTS: The critical Tw was ~32.3 °C (51% RH), producing TAbove of ~33.7 °C (57% RH) and Tbelow of ~30.9 °C (45% RH). Nine participants did not complete TAbove and 1 did not complete TBelow. Peak Tre was 39.2 (39.0-39.2)°C in TAbove, 38.2 (37.9-38.4)°C in TBelow , and 37.2 (37.2-37.4)°C in control. Tre rose continuously by 0.3 °C/h [95%CI: 0.3, 0.4] and 0.1 °C/h [0.0, 0.1] in TAbove and TBelow, respectively (P ≤ 0.01), but was stable in control (0.0 °C/h [-0.1, 0.1]; P = 0.17). In TAbove and TBelow, participants also exhibited continual rises in skin temperature (0.3 °C/h [0.2, 0.4] and 0.1 °C/h [0.0, 0.2]) and heart rate (6 bpm/h [4, 8] and 4 bpm/h [2, 7]; P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: Core temperature inflection clearly demarcated the ambient conditions above which heat balance cannot be achieved and severe hyperthermia rapidly develops. Below this threshold, stable body temperatures were not achieved, though rates of rise were slower than in Tabove. Our findings suggest that ramp protocols overestimate the environmental limits for compensability. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Mitacs (ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT05601713)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207