MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of passive heat exposure on myocardial blood flow in healthy young and older adults

2022· article· en· W4225425625 on OpenAlexafffund
Hadiatou Barry, Georgia K. Chaseling, Caroline D’Oliviera‐Sousa, François Harel, Matthieu Pelletier‐Galarneau, Daniel Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersFondation Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal
KeywordsMedicineBlood flowBlood pressureHeart rateRate pressure productCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Extreme heat is associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular mortality in older adults (≥60 years). However, the pathophysiology that links extreme heat and cardiovascular mortality remains unknown. One possibility is that myocardial oxygen requirements during heat exposure cannot be met by sufficient increased in myocardial blood flow (MBF) thereby predisposing to ischemia. However, the extent to which MBF increases during heat exposure, and whether age alters this increase, is unknown. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that passive heat exposure increases MBF and that this increase is attenuated in healthy older adults. METHODS MBF was measured during passive heat exposure (water‐perfused suit) in 15 young (27 years, range: 24‐30) and 14 older (68 years, range: 64‐72) healthy adults with 82‐Rubidium positron emission tomography. Four MBF measurements were performed: prior to heat exposure (baseline) and at an increase in rectal temperature of 0.5°C, 1.0°C, and 1.5°C. Heart rate (ECG) and blood pressure (automated auscultation) were also measured to calculate rate pressure product (RPP; heart rate x systolic blood pressure). MBF reserve (MFR) was calculated by dividing the MBF at 1.5°C by baseline MBF. RESULTS Baseline MBF was 0.76 ± 0.19 mL/min/g in young adults and 0.88 ± 0.21 mL/min/g in older adults (p=0.14). MBF increased similarly in both groups during heat exposure (interaction, p=0.31). Nonetheless, older adults displayed a lower MFR at an increase in rectal temperature of 1.5°C (young: 2.3 ± 0.7 vs. older: 1.8 ± 0.4, p=0.03). The lower MFR in older adults was paralleled by an attenuated increase in RPP during passive heating (at + 1.5°C, young: 6.8 ± 1.7vs. older: 3.6 ± 2.2 bpm·mmHg·10 3 , p<0.01), due to a blunted increase in heart rate (young: 50 ± 12vs. older: 34 ± 14 bpm, p<0.01). When the change in MBF was plotted against the change in RPP, the slope of the regression lines did not differ between young (0.11 [95% CI; 0.07, 0.15]) and older (0.08 [95% CI; 0.04, 0.11] mL/g/min/ bpm·mmHg·10 3 ,p=0.24) adults. CONCLUSION These results show that passive heat exposure roughly doubles MBF in healthy young and older adults. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the increase in MBF during passive heat exposure is not altered by age and is proportional to the increase in RPP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicClimate Change and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→