Key result
Wrist thermistors with memory yielded an acrophase average of 4:15 h ± 1:55 h, providing more robust rhythmic parameters than thoracic measurements (10:12 h ± 7:26 h) or digital thermometers.
Why the study?
Do thermistors with memory provide robust alternative measurements of human body temperature rhythmicity compared to digital thermometers in healthy volunteers?
Observational (n=13)
Do thermistors with memory provide robust alternative measurements of human body temperature rhythmicity compared to digital thermometers in healthy volunteers?
Thermistors with memory worn on the wrist offer a robust alternative to digital thermometers for continuous monitoring of human body temperature rhythmicity.
Supports wrist thermistors for robust rhythm assessment in volunteers; leaves open clinical adoption or patient validation.
In this paper we compare rhythmic parameters of human body temperature simultaneously measured with digital thermometers and thermistors with memory (Thermochron iButtons®). Thirteen healthy male and female volunteers (mean age of 25) measured oral and axillary temperatures with digital thermometers every hour during wakefulness for two days and every three hours for three days, totalling five consecutive days. Concomitantly, they wore badges with thermistors in the thorax and the wrist. Temporal series circadian rhythmicity was evaluated with the Cosinor technique. Acrophases average were 17:32 h±2:02 h for axillary temperature, 10:12 h±7:26 h for thoracic temperature, 17:18 h±00:50 h for oral temperature and 4:15 h±1:55 h for wrist temperature. The rhythmic parameters of the wrist are more robust than those of the thorax. The collection of data in humans, generally performed with digital thermometers, is restricted to the waking phase and depends on the discipline of the volunteers. We suggest that the use of the thermistor with memory in the wrist can be adopted as alternative methodology to studies of human body temperature rhythmicity, especially recommended for long temporal series.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Areas et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=13). Thermistors with memory (Thermochron iButtons) vs. Digital thermometers was evaluated on Acrophases average of body temperature. Wrist thermistors with memory yielded an acrophase average of 4:15 h ± 1:55 h, providing more robust rhythmic parameters than thoracic measurements (10:12 h ± 7:26 h) or digital thermometers.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: