The relative contribution of α‐ and β‐adrenergic sweating during heat exposure and the influence of sex and training status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While human eccrine sweat glands respond to adrenergic agonists, there remains a paucity of information on the factors modulating this response. Thus, we assessed the relative contribution of α- and β-adrenergic sweating during a heat exposure and as a function of individual factors of sex and training status. α- and β-adrenergic sweating was assessed in forty-eight healthy young men (n = 35) and women (n = 13) including endurance-trained (n = 12) and untrained men (n = 12) under non-heat exposure (temperate, 25°C; n = 17) and heat exposure (hot, 35°C; n = 48) conditions using transdermal iontophoresis of phenylephrine (α-adrenergic agonist) and salbutamol (β-adrenergic agonist) on the ventral forearm, respectively. Adrenergic sweating was also measured after iontophoretic administration of atropine (muscarinic receptor antagonist) or saline (control) to evaluate how changes in muscarinic receptor activity modulate the adrenergic response to a heat exposure (n = 12). α- and β-adrenergic sweating was augmented in hot compared with temperate conditions (both P ≤ .014), albeit the relative increase was greater in β (~5.4-fold)- as compared to α (~1.5-fold)-adrenergic-mediated sweating response. However, both α- and β-adrenergic sweating was abolished by atropinization (P = .001). Endurance-trained men showed an augmentation in α- (P = .043) but not β (P = .960)-adrenergic sweating as compared to untrained men. Finally, a greater α- and β-adrenergic sweating response (both P ≤ .001) was measured in habitually active men than in women. We show that heat exposure augments α-and β-adrenergic sweating differently via mechanisms associated with altered muscarinic receptor activity. Sex and training status modulate this response.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".