Between-subject factors influencing hand skin temperature response after cold stress test in a general adult population
[EN] Infrared thermography assessment using cold stress test (CST) is often used to diagnose pathologies that affect vascularization. However, the diagnostic capacity of the CST can still be questioned because of the high intersubject variability of hand skin temperature response. The objective of t...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/229564 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/229564 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Infrared thermography Thermal image Medicine Dynamic thermography Vascularization |
| Sumario: | [EN] Infrared thermography assessment using cold stress test (CST) is often used to diagnose pathologies that affect vascularization. However, the diagnostic capacity of the CST can still be questioned because of the high intersubject variability of hand skin temperature response. The objective of this study was to assess which is the main between-subject factors that explain hand skin temperature response after CST. A total of 78 participants (44 females and 34 males) did a CST based in a hand immersion during 30 s at 6.4 degrees C of water temperature. Skin temperature was measured using infrared thermography before and during the 3 min after the CST. To obtain coefficients that explain the thermal response after CST, a logarithmic equation for each region of interest of the hand was calculated, and intercept and slope coefficients were obtained. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to explain each one of the logarithmic coefficients (beta 0 and beta 1) with the demographic data as inputs. Our results showed that the main between-subject factors that explain hand skin temperature response after CST were the body surface area, the physical activity volume, and the sex/menstrual cycle, explaining 20% of the variance of the response after CST. In conclusion, between-subject factors assessed in our study explained the 20% of the variance of the response after CST suggesting that there is still a large percentage of the variance that could be explained by pathology when the test is used to diagnose diseases that affect vascularization. |
|---|