ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Validation of the iButton and Flex sensors for measuring skin temperature.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of next-generation wireless skin temperature sensors during exercise-heat stress.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSkin temperature is a critical component of athletes' heat strain during exercise in the heat. This study evaluated the innovative Flex sensor (BodyCap, Caen, France), allowing real-time measurements, against a data logger (iButton hygrochron DS1923, Analog Devices, Wilmington, USA), commonly used in sports science.
methodsIn a first study, the accuracies of iButton faces as well as the Flex sensor were tested on a constant-temperature Peltier module affixed to a brass plate. In a second study, concurrent skin temperature measurements were conducted with both sensors on eight participants cycling in hot conditions.
resultsBoth faces of the iButton underestimated plate temperature, with the base (ME = mean error: 0.59 ± 0.25 °C at 30 °C, 1.62 ± 0.48 °C at 40 °C) being significantly more accurate than the top (ME: 1.14 ± 0.26 °C at 30 °C, 3.02 ± 0.71 °C at 40 °C, p < 0.001). The rate of temperature increase of the base was also higher than the top at 30 °C (1.97 ± 0.16 °C/min vs 1.49 ± 0.15 °C/min) and 40 °C (4.41 ± 0.46 °C/min vs 3.14 ± 0.16 °C/min, both p < 0.001). The Flex sensor underestimated plate temperature (ME: 1.31 ± 0.32 °C at 30 °C, 3.00 ± 0.84 °C at 40 °C), showing larger errors than the iButton base (p < 0.001). During exercise, the Flex sensor (36.91 ± 1.19 °C) measured higher skin temperature compared to the iButton (36.50 ± 1.15 °C), with an ME of -0.41 ± 0.55 °C.
conclusionIn the absence of a gold standard, for scenarios where real-time monitoring is not required, using the iButton with its base applied to the skin is therefore recommended. To enhance the Flex sensor's accuracy, implementing a calibration protocol before use is strongly suggested, enabling its full potential for real-time monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41108381What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.