Validation of an ingestible temperature data logging and telemetry system during exercise in the heat

Gavin Travers, D. Nichols, A. Farooq, S. Racinais, J. Périard
{"title":"Validation of an ingestible temperature data logging and telemetry system during exercise in the heat","authors":"Gavin Travers, D. Nichols, A. Farooq, S. Racinais, J. Périard","doi":"10.1080/23328940.2016.1171281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Aim: Intestinal temperature telemetry systems are promising monitoring and research tools in athletes. However, the additional equipment that must be carried to continuously record temperature data limits their use to training. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of a new gastrointestinal temperature data logging and telemetry system (e-Celsius™) during water bath experimentation and exercise trials. Materials and Methods: Temperature readings of 23 pairs of e-Celsius (TeC) and VitalSense (TVS) ingestible capsules were compared to rectal thermistor responses (Trec) at 35, 38.5 and 42°C in a water bath. Devices were also assessed in vivo during steady-state cycling (n = 11) and intermittent running (n = 11) in hot conditions. Results: The water bath experiment showed TVS and TeC under-reported Trec (P<0.001). This underestimation of Trec also occurred during both cycling (mean bias vs TVS: 0.21°C, ICC: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66–0.91; mean bias vs. TeC: 0.44°C, ICC: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.07–0.86, P<0.05) and running trials (mean bias vs. TVS: 0.15°C, ICC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83–0.96; mean bias vs. TeC: 0.25, ICC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.61–0.94, P<0.05). However, calibrating the devices attenuated this difference during cycling and eliminated it during running. During recovery following cycling exercise, TeC and TVS were significantly lower than Trec despite calibration (P<0.01). Conclusion: These results indicate that both TeC and TVS under-report Trec during steady-state and intermittent exercise in the heat, with TeC predicting Trec with the least accuracy of the telemetry devices. It is therefore recommended to calibrate these devices at multiple temperatures prior to use.","PeriodicalId":22565,"journal":{"name":"Temperature: Multidisciplinary Biomedical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Temperature: Multidisciplinary Biomedical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2016.1171281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aim: Intestinal temperature telemetry systems are promising monitoring and research tools in athletes. However, the additional equipment that must be carried to continuously record temperature data limits their use to training. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of a new gastrointestinal temperature data logging and telemetry system (e-Celsius™) during water bath experimentation and exercise trials. Materials and Methods: Temperature readings of 23 pairs of e-Celsius (TeC) and VitalSense (TVS) ingestible capsules were compared to rectal thermistor responses (Trec) at 35, 38.5 and 42°C in a water bath. Devices were also assessed in vivo during steady-state cycling (n = 11) and intermittent running (n = 11) in hot conditions. Results: The water bath experiment showed TVS and TeC under-reported Trec (P<0.001). This underestimation of Trec also occurred during both cycling (mean bias vs TVS: 0.21°C, ICC: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66–0.91; mean bias vs. TeC: 0.44°C, ICC: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.07–0.86, P<0.05) and running trials (mean bias vs. TVS: 0.15°C, ICC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83–0.96; mean bias vs. TeC: 0.25, ICC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.61–0.94, P<0.05). However, calibrating the devices attenuated this difference during cycling and eliminated it during running. During recovery following cycling exercise, TeC and TVS were significantly lower than Trec despite calibration (P<0.01). Conclusion: These results indicate that both TeC and TVS under-report Trec during steady-state and intermittent exercise in the heat, with TeC predicting Trec with the least accuracy of the telemetry devices. It is therefore recommended to calibrate these devices at multiple temperatures prior to use.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
验证在高温下运动时可摄取的温度数据记录和遥测系统
摘要目的:肠道温度遥测系统是一种很有前途的运动员监测和研究工具。然而,必须携带的额外设备来连续记录温度数据限制了它们在训练中的使用。本研究的目的是评估一种新的胃肠道温度数据记录和遥测系统(e-Celsius™)在水浴实验和运动试验中的有效性和可靠性。材料和方法:将23对e-Celsius (TeC)和VitalSense (TVS)可摄取胶囊在35、38.5和42°C的水浴中与直肠热敏电阻(Trec)的温度读数进行比较。在高温条件下,对设备进行稳态循环(n = 11)和间歇运行(n = 11)的体内评估。结果:水浴实验显示TVS和TeC低报Trec (P<0.001)。在两个循环中也发生了Trec的低估(与TVS的平均偏倚:0.21°C, ICC: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-0.91;平均偏倚vs. TeC: 0.44°C, ICC: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.07-0.86, P<0.05)和运行试验(平均偏倚vs. TVS: 0.15°C, ICC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83-0.96;平均偏倚与TeC: 0.25, ICC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.61-0.94, P<0.05)。然而,校准设备在循环期间减弱了这种差异,并在运行期间消除了这种差异。在自行车运动后恢复期间,尽管校正,TeC和TVS均显著低于Trec (P<0.01)。结论:这些结果表明,TeC和TVS都低估了高温下稳态和间歇运动时的Trec, TeC预测Trec的准确性是遥测设备中最低的。因此,建议在使用前在多个温度下校准这些设备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The multifaceted benefits of passive heat therapies for extending the healthspan: A comprehensive review with a focus on Finnish sauna Thermoregulation in mice: The road to understanding torpor hypothermia and the shortcomings of a circuit for generating fever Advances in thermal physiology of diving marine mammals: The dual role of peripheral perfusion. Cooling vests alleviate perceptual heat strain perceived by COVID-19 nurses Physiology of sweat gland function: The roles of sweating and sweat composition in human health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1