| Literature DB >> 31331509 |
Jonathan Gosselin1, Jeff Béliveau2, Mathieu Hamel3, Douglas Casa4, Yuri Hosokawa5, José A Morais6, Eric D B Goulet7.
Abstract
Wireless measurement of rectal temperature during exercise may circumvent some limitations associated with the use of a conventional wired probe. We determined, for the first time, whether temperatures provided in vivo by wireless ingestible thermometric telemetric pills and a rectal probe compare favorably under conditions producing slow and rapid increases and decreases in rectal temperature. While wearing a rectal probe linked to a wireless ingestible thermometric telemetric pill, 13 participants completed the following phases: 1) 30 min sitting; 2) 45 min passive heat exposure (40-42 °C); 3) 45 min sitting while ingesting 7.5 g of ice slurry · kg body mass-1; 4) running exercise (38 °C) at 68% V˙O2max until a 39.5 °C increase in rectal probe temperature and; 5) cold-water (10 °C) immersion until a 1.5 °C decrease in rectal probe temperature. Acceptable differences between devices were taken as ≤ 0.3 °C. Mean differences within phases were all < 0.3 °C, whereas 95% limits of agreement ranged from ±0.2 °C to ±0.4 °C, coefficient of variations from ±0.3% to ±0.6% and typical error of measurements from ±0.1 °C to ±0.2°. Of the 14881 rectal temperature values measured over the experiment with the wireless ingestible thermometric telemetric pills and rectal probe, 91% of the differences between devices were found to be ≤ 0.3 °C. Results suggest that rectal temperatures provided by a wireless ingestible thermometric telemetric pill used as a suppository agree with those of a conventional wired probe. Hence, rectal temperature can reliably be measured using a wireless ingestible thermometric telemetric pill as a suppository.Entities:
Keywords: Cold-water immersion; Core body temperature; Exercise; Heat stress; Telemetry; Temperature measurement
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31331509 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2019.05.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Therm Biol ISSN: 0306-4565 Impact factor: 2.902