Optimal duration of whole-body cryostimulation exposure to achieve target skin temperature: influence of body mass index—a randomized cross-over controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of whole-body cryostimulation (WBC) may be influenced by individual characteristics. The aim of this study is to determine the optimal exposure time required to reach the analgesic threshold of 13.6 °C, which has been proposed to be a target temperature to be reached at skin level. Our objective is also to follow the skin temperature changes during and after WBC considering the participants body mass index (BMI). METHODS: )]. In a random order, each participant experienced a 4-min WBC exposure, as well as a control session with no cold exposure. Skin temperature was measured using a thermal imaging camera during and after cold exposure. RESULTS: Normal weight participants reached the threshold in 4 min, whereas overweight participants reached it in 3 min 30 s. Following WBC, a rapid mean skin temperature (MsT°) increase was observed for both groups, immediately after exposure. However, after 30 min, MsT° remained significantly lower than at baseline. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that appropriate WBC dosage may differ according to BMI. Understanding the impact of such variable on cold exposure outcomes can help to optimize WBC treatments and maximize potential benefits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".