Type 2 diabetes does not exacerbate body heat storage in older adults during brief, extreme passive heat exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging exacerbates hyperthermia and cardiovascular strain during passive heat exposure, but it remains unclear whether those effects worsen in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We examined these responses in unacclimatized, physically active, older individuals with (n = 13, mean ± SD age: 60 ± 8 years, HbA1c: 7.0 ± 1.0%) and without (Control, n = 30, 62 ± 6 years) well-controlled T2D during a brief, 3-h passive exposure to extreme heat (44°C, 30% relative humidity). Metabolic heat production, dry heat gain, total heat gain (metabolic heat production + dry heat gain), evaporative heat loss, body heat storage (summation of heat gain/loss), rectal and mean skin temperatures as well as heart rate were measured continuously. No between-group differences were observed for metabolic heat production (T2D vs. Control; 53 ± 5 vs. 55 ± 7 W/m2), dry heat gain (48 ± 9 vs. 47 ± 11 W/m2), total heat gain (101 ± 10 vs. 102 ± 14 W/m2) and evaporative heat loss (83 ± 10 vs. 85 ± 12 W/m2) over the 3 h (all P > 0.05). Consequently, the changes in body heat storage (380 ± 93 vs. 358 ± 172 kJ, P = 0.67) were similar between groups. Moreover, no between-group differences in rectal and mean skin temperatures or heart rate were measured. We conclude that unacclimatized, physically active, older adults with well-controlled T2D do not experience greater hyperthermia and cardiovascular strain compared to their healthy counterparts while resting in extreme heat for a brief, 3-h period.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".