Hypothermia rewarming effectiveness of distal limb warming with either Fluidotherapy® or warm water immersion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rewarming mildly hypothermic subjects with distal extremity rewarming has been associated with significantly greater rewarming rate compared to shivering-only as it increases heat flow to the core by opening up of arteriovenous anastomoses in the extremities. This study compared distal extremity rewarming with Fluidotherapy® or warm water, or shivering-only. Seven healthy individuals were cooled in 8°C water to either a core temperature of 35°C or a maximum of one hour. The subjects were then rewarmed with one of the three rewarming methods (distal extremity rewarming with 44°C water or 46°C Fluidotherapy® or shivering-only) on three different occasions. There was no significant difference in the afterdrop length and duration between the three conditions. Fluidotherapy® provided rewarming rates similar to the shivering-only condition. Warm water rewarming provided higher heat donation to distal extremities and lead to a threefold higher rewarming rate compared to the other two treatments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".