The effect of cooling vests on physiological and perceptual responses: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans in hot environments are exposed to health risks and thermal discomfort which seriously affect their physical, physiological and mental workload. This study aimed to assess the effects of using cooling vests (CVs) on physiological and perceptual responses in the workplace. Three main databases were searched using subject headings and appropriate Mesh terms. The article has been written according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews checklist. A total of 23,837 studies were identified for screening and 63 studies were eligible for data extraction. A statistically significant difference was observed in body temperature among hybrid cooling garments (HBCGs), phase-change materials (PCMs) and air-cooled garments (ACGs) at 31.56–37 °C (60% relative humidity), evaporative cooling garments at 25.8–28.1 °C and liquid cooling garments at 35 °C (49% relative humidity) compared to without CVs (p < 0.001). HBCGs (PCMs and ACGs) are effective means in hot, moderate, humid or dry environments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".