Edwards B, Waterhouse J, Reilly T, Atkinson G
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, UK.
Chronobiol Int. 2002 May;19(3):579-97. doi: 10.1081/cbi-120004227.
Eight healthy males were studied for a total of 13 subject-days to assess if gut (from an ingested pill) and axilla (from a thermally insulated skin probe) temperatures would act as a substitute for rectal temperature in field studies of the circadian rhythm of core temperature. Subjects slept and went about their activities, indoors and outdoors, normally. Regular recordings (at 6 min intervals) were made of temperatures from the three sites. In addition, activity was measured (by a sensor on the nondominant wrist) so that the raw temperature data could be "purified," that is, corrected for the direct effects of sleep and activity. Inspection of the raw data indicated that there was a close parallelism between rectal and gut temperatures, but that the parallelism between rectal and insulated axilla temperatures was less reliable. This parallelism was supported by initial calculations of the correlations between rectal and gut temperatures (high and positive) and between rectal and insulated axilla (lower, though still positive) temperatures. Calculation of the limits of agreement between the parameters of the cosine curves fitted to the raw data confirmed that the rectal and gut temperatures were far closer with regard to acrophase and amplitude than were rectal and insulated axilla temperatures (-0.31 +/- 0.89 vs. +0.75 +/- 6.03 h and +0.002 +/- 0.116 vs. +0.083 +/- 0.625 degrees C, respectively). After purification of the temperature data, the limits of agreement for the cosine parameters acrophase and amplitude still indicated that there was a closer agreement between rectal and gut temperatures than between rectal and insulated axilla temperatures (-0.30 +/- 1.12 vs. +0.58 +/- 6.69 h, and +0.007 +/- 0.116 vs. +0.104 +/- 0.620 degrees C, respectively). Part of the explanation of this difference was the unreliable relationships between temperature changes in insulated axilla temperature and bursts of activity and going to bed. It is concluded that, whereas gut temperature is a viable alternativ to rectal temperature (from the viewpoints of both user acceptability and the reliability of data obtained), insulated axilla temperature, though acceptable to subjects, is unreliable from an experimental viewpoint.
对8名健康男性进行了为期13个受试者日的研究,以评估在核心体温昼夜节律的现场研究中,肠道温度(来自摄入的药丸)和腋窝温度(来自隔热皮肤探头)是否可替代直肠温度。受试者正常地在室内和室外睡觉及进行日常活动。每隔6分钟对这三个部位的温度进行常规记录。此外,测量活动量(通过非优势手腕上的传感器),以便对原始温度数据进行“净化”,即校正睡眠和活动的直接影响。对原始数据的检查表明,直肠温度和肠道温度之间存在密切的平行关系,但直肠温度和隔热腋窝温度之间的平行关系不太可靠。直肠温度与肠道温度之间(高度正相关)以及直肠温度与隔热腋窝温度之间(较低,但仍为正相关)的相关性初步计算结果支持了这种平行关系。对拟合原始数据的余弦曲线参数之间的一致性界限进行计算证实,就体温峰值相位和幅度而言,直肠温度和肠道温度比直肠温度和隔热腋窝温度更为接近(分别为-0.31±0.89小时对+0.75±6.03小时,以及+0.002±0.116℃对+0.083±0.625℃)。对温度数据进行净化后,余弦参数体温峰值相位和幅度的一致性界限仍然表明,直肠温度和肠道温度之间的一致性比直肠温度和隔热腋窝温度之间的一致性更紧密(分别为-0.30±1.12小时对+0.58±6.69小时,以及+0.007±0.116℃对+0.104±0.620℃)。这种差异的部分原因是隔热腋窝温度的变化与活动爆发和上床睡觉之间的关系不可靠。得出的结论是,从使用者可接受性和所获数据的可靠性这两个角度来看,肠道温度是直肠温度的可行替代方案;而隔热腋窝温度虽然受试者可以接受,但从实验角度来看是不可靠的。