Cited by 60Circadian rhythm and melatoninThermoregulation and physiological responsesSpaceflight effects on biology

Circadian rhythms in bed rest: monitoring core body temperature via heat-flux approach is superior to skin surface temperature

Open access
Mendt, Stefan, Maggioni, Martina Anna, Nordine, Michael, Steinach, Mathias, Opatz, Oliver, Belavý, Daniel, Felsenberg, Dieter, Koch, Jochim +3 more·2017·Chronobiology International

Abstract

Continuous recordings of core body temperature (CBT) are a well-established approach in describing circadian rhythms. Given the discomfort of invasive CBT measurement techniques, the use of skin temperature recordings has been proposed as a surrogate. More recently, we proposed a heat-flux approach (the so-called Double Sensor) for monitoring CBT. Studies investigating the reliability of the heat-flux approach over a 24-hour period, as well as comparisons with skin temperature recordings, are however lacking. The first aim of the study was therefore to compare rectal, skin, and heat-flux temperature recordings for monitoring circadian rhythm. In addition, to assess the optimal placement of sensor probes, we also investigated the effect of different anatomical measurement sites, i.e. sensor probes positioned at the forehead vs. the sternum. Data were collected as part of the Berlin BedRest study (BBR2-2) under controlled, standardized, and thermoneutral conditions. 24-hours temperature data of seven healthy males were collected after 50 days of -6° head-down tilt bed-rest. Mean Pearson correlation coefficients indicated a high association between rectal and forehead temperature recordings (r > 0.80 for skin and Double Sensor). In contrast, only a poor to moderate relationship was observed for sensors positioned at the sternum (r = -0.02 and r = 0.52 for skin and Double Sensor, respectively). Cross-correlation analyses further confirmed the feasibility of the forehead as a preferred monitoring site. The phase difference between forehead Double Sensor and rectal recordings was not statistically different from zero (p = 0.313), and was significantly smaller than the phase difference between forehead skin and rectal temperatures (p = 0.016). These findings were substantiated by cosinor analyses, revealing significant differences for mesor, amplitude, and acrophase between rectal and forehead skin temperature recordings, but not between forehead Double Sensor and rectal temperature measurements. Finally, Bland-Altman analysis indicated narrower limits of agreement for rhythm parameters between rectal and Double Sensor measurements compared to between rectal and skin recordings, irrespective of the measurement site (i.e. forehead, sternum). Based on these data we conclude that (1) Double Sensor recordings are significantly superior to skin temperature measurements for non-invasively assessing the circadian rhythm of rectal temperature, and (2) temperature rhythms from the sternum are less reliable than from the forehead. We suggest that forehead Double Sensor recordings may provide a surrogate for rectal temperature in circadian rhythm research, where constant routine protocols are applied. Future studies will be needed to assess the sensor's ecological validity outside the laboratory under changing environmental and physiological conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07420528.2016.1224241

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mendt, S., Maggioni, M. A., Nordine, M., Steinach, M., Opatz, O., Belavý, D., Felsenberg, D., Koch, J., Shang, P., Gunga, H.-C., & Stahn, A.
Affiliations
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Dräger (Germany) (DE)
  • Northwestern Polytechnical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Mendt, Stefan
Venue
Chronobiology International
Published
2016-10-11
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
666-676
ISSN
  • 0742-0528 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-6073
OpenAlex
W2530650101
Cited by
60
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Chronobiology International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (50WB0720, 50WB1030, 50WB1330)
  • European Space Agency (14431/02/NL/SH2)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Thermoregulation and physiological responses
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Spaceflight effects on biology
Keywords
circadian rhythm, core body temperature, skin surface temperature, rectal temperature, head-down bed rest, sensor placement, non-invasive temperature monitoring, cosinor analysis, phase difference, measurement agreement, microgravity experiments, spaceflight countermeasures, shift work
MeSH terms
Bed Rest, Body Temperature Regulation, Circadian Rhythm, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Skin Temperature, Thermography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review