Older Firefighters Are Susceptible to Age-Related Impairments in Heat Dissipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aging-induced reduction in whole-body heat loss (HL) capacity generates concerns regarding the continued participation of older workers in occupations such as firefighting. We compared HL and change in body heat storage (S) during intermittent exercise in warm/dry and warm/humid conditions among older male firefighters (OLDER, n = 9, age = 54.7 ± 2.1 yr), older (age-matched) nonfirefighters (NON-FF, n = 9, age = 52.8 ± 1.2 yr), and young firefighters (YOUNG, n = 6, age = 26.7 ± 0.8 yr). METHODS: We measured evaporative heat loss and dry heat exchange via the Snellen whole-body direct calorimeter while participants performed four 15-min bouts of cycling at 400 W of metabolic heat production separated by 15-min recovery periods in warm/dry (35 °C, 20% relative humidity) and warm/humid (35 °C, 60% relative humidity) conditions. RESULTS: We found no differences (P > 0.05) in HL or cumulative S (ΔS) between OLDER and NON-FF in the warm/dry (ΔS: OLDER = 233 ± 26 kJ, NON-FF = 270 ± 29 kJ) or warm/humid (ΔS: OLDER = 548 ± 24 kJ, NON-FF = 504 ± 47 kJ) conditions. The OLDER and NON-FF had lower HL than the YOUNG during exercise in both environmental conditions (P < 0.05). The OLDER stored 40% (P > 0.05) and 46% (P = 0.004) more heat than YOUNG in the warm/dry and warm/humid conditions, respectively. The NON-FF stored 63% (P = 0.016) and 34% (P = 0.025) more heat than the YOUNG in the dry and humid conditions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Older firefighters and age-matched nonfirefighters demonstrate similar HL and S during work in the heat. Moreover, HL is significantly reduced in older compared to younger firefighters during exercise in both warm/dry and warm/humid conditions. Consequently, older firefighters may be more susceptible to thermal injury while on duty than their younger counterparts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".