A Proof-of-Concept for a Continuous-Temperature Circulating Water Bath in Frostbite Limb Rewarming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frostbite is a thermal tissue injury that can occur following prolonged exposure to freezing temperatures, often resulting in tissue ischemia and sometimes requiring amputation. The American Burn Association recommends rapid rewarming of frostbite injuries in 38-42 °C water for 15-30 minutes, but clinical application of this recommendation is often inconsistent. Our objective was to find a method to better facilitate frostbite treatment by creating a continuous-temperature circulating water bath and demonstrating its effectiveness with a proof-of-concept, descriptive study. We hypothesized that this design would effectively rewarm chilled extremities within 30 minutes without healthcare workers being required to continually monitor and maintain water temperature. We constructed a continuous-temperature circulating water bath system using a reservoir and an Anova Precision Cooker NANO. Pig feet were chilled and then immersed in 39.0 °C water with or without the Anova Precision Cooker NANO. Without the Anova Precision Cooker NANO, tissue warmed from 3.2 ± 0.3 °C to 34.2 ± 0.2 °C over 30 minutes (final water temperature of 36.5 ± 0.1 °C). With it, tissue warmed from 2.7 ± 0.2 °C to 36.7 ± 0.2 °C (final water temperature of 39.1 ± 0.1 °C). The continuous-temperature circulating water bath offers a standardized, reliable, and effective method for rewarming hypothermic tissue. Our approach could provide a solution to inconsistent and impractical frostbite rewarming methods in clinical settings to better promote rewarming compliance. Further studies are ongoing to validate the feasibility of using the continuous-temperature circulating water bath in clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".