Age Modulates Physiological Responses during Fan Use under Extreme Heat and Humidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the effect of electric fan use on cardiovascular and thermoregulatory responses of nine young (26 ± 3 yr) and nine aged (68 ± 4 yr) adults exposed to extreme heat and humidity. METHODS: While resting at a temperature of 42°C, relative humidity increased from 30% to 70% in 2% increments every 5 min. On randomized days, the protocol was repeated without or with fan use. HR, core (Tcore) and mean skin (Tsk) temperatures were measured continuously. Whole-body sweat loss was measured from changes in nude body weight. Other measures of cardiovascular (cardiac output), thermoregulatory (local cutaneous and forearm vascular conductance, local sweat rate), and perceptual (thermal and thirst sensations) responses were also examined. RESULTS: When averaged over the entire protocol, fan use resulted in a small reduction of HR (-2 bpm, 95% confidence interval [CI], -8 to 3), and slightly greater Tcore (+0.05°C; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.23) and Tsk (+0.03°C; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.42) in young adults. In contrast, fan use resulted in greater HR (+5 bpm; 95% CI, 0-10), Tcore (+0.20°C; 95% CI, 0.00-0.41), and Tsk (+0.47°C; 95% CI, 0.18-0.76) in aged adults. A greater whole-body sweat loss during fan use was observed in young (+0.2 kg; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.6) but not aged (0.0 kg; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.2) adults. Greater local sweat rate and cutaneous vascular conductance were observed with fan use in aged adults. Other measures of cardiovascular, thermoregulatory, and perceptual responses were unaffected by fan use in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: During extreme heat and humidity, fan use elevates physiological strain in aged, but not young, adults.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".