MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403990849 · doi:10.1186/s40101-024-00375-2

Optimal duration of whole-body cryostimulation exposure to achieve target skin temperature: influence of body mass index—a randomized cross-over controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4403990849 on OpenAlexaff
Hela Jdidi, Claire de Bisschop, Benoît Dugué, Romain Bouzigon, Wafa Douzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsAthletic Edge Sports Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightBody mass indexMedicineSkin temperatureAnimal scienceThermoregulationInternal medicineDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGYSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207