Frostbite Immersion Rewarming Methods: Sink & Faucet vs Bucket vs Immersion Circulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frostbite can lead to cellular damage, vascular injury, and an altered functional status. Current rapid rewarming methods are unreliable at maintaining water temperature between the gold standard range of 37°C and 39°C. However, immersion circulators can precisely maintain this temperature range throughout rewarming, potentially leading to better patient outcomes following frostbite injury. In-vitro rewarming trials were conducted using frozen wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) legs to evaluate 3 rewarming methods: sink and faucet, bucket, and immersion circulator. Porcine leg temperature and water temperature were measured every minute over the 30 minute duration of each trial. The immersion circulator method proved to be the most efficient at reaching the target tissue temperature (9 minutes) while maintaining the least variability in water temperature (0% of time spent below 37°C). Our study concludes that the immersion circulator method is superior to other methods as it achieves faster and more consistent rewarming. This method has the potential to enhance frostbite treatment protocols, particularly in clinical and field settings where consistent rewarming is difficult to achieve.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".