Electric fans mitigate cardiovascular and thermal strain during extreme heat events (1104.5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extreme heat events (EHEs) increase mortality rates due to heat related illness and are known to exacerbate underlying health conditions. Current international health guidelines warn against the fan use when ambient temperature exceeds 35°C; however no evidence exists supporting or refuting their use during EHEs. Our aim was to evaluate the critical environmental limits for cardiovascular and thermal strain with (F) and without (NF) a fan (v=4.0 m•s‐1) at an ambient temperature (Ta) of 36°C and 42°C in 4 separate trials. Six males (23.8 ± 3.5 y) sat in a climatic chamber regulated at either 36°C or 42°C while ambient water vapor pressure (Pa) was raised by 0.3 kPa every 7.5 min from 1.6 to 5.6 kPa. Heart rate (HR), esophageal temperature (Tes), and whole body sweat loss (WBSL) were measured. The critical Pa (Pa_crit) at which an upward inflection of HR was observed was significantly higher with F at both 36°C (F: 5.1±0.2 kPa; NF: 3.9±0.4 kPa, P<0.001) and 42°C (F: 4.4±0.4 kPa; NF: 3.2±0.4 kPa; P=0.01). Likewise, the Pa_crit for an upward inflection of Tes was significantly higher with F at 42°C (F: 4.8±0.1 kPa; NF: 4.1±0.4 kPa; P=0.01). However, WBSL was significantly greater with F at 42°C (F: 877±23 g; NF: 540±125 g, P=0.005) and 36°C (F: 391±23 g; NF: 353±32 g, P=0.02). Thus, contrary to current guidelines, fans mitigate cardiovascular and thermal strain at Ta values as high as 42°C, but necessitate a greater fluid intake. Grant Funding Source : Supported by NSERC
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".