MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379056965 · doi:10.1289/ehp11651

Efficacy of Cooling Centers for Mitigating Physiological Strain in Older Adults during Daylong Heat Exposure: A Laboratory-Based Heat Wave Simulation

2023· article· en· W4379056965 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert D. Meade, Sean R. Notley, Ashley P. Akerman, James J. McCormick, Kelli E. King, Ronald J. Sigal, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversité de SherbrookeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineHeat waveAir conditioningLimitingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Health agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, recommend that heat-vulnerable older adults without home air-conditioning should visit cooling centers or other air-conditioned locations (e.g., a shopping mall) during heat waves. However, experimental evidence supporting the effectiveness of brief air-conditioning is lacking. Objective: We evaluated whether brief exposure to an air-conditioned environment, as experienced in a cooling center, was effective for limiting physiological strain in older adults during a daylong laboratory-based heat wave simulation. Methods: Forty adults 64–79 years of age underwent a 9-h simulated heat wave (heat index: 37°C) with (cooling group, n=20) or without (control group, n=20) a cooling intervention consisting of 2-h rest in an air-conditioned room (∼23°C, hours 5–6). Core and skin temperatures, whole-body heat exchange and storage, cardiovascular function, and circulating markers of acute inflammation were assessed. Results: Core temperature was 0.8°C (95% CI: 0.6, 0.9) lower in the cooling group compared with the control group at the end of the cooling intervention (p<0.001; hour 6), and it remained 0.3°C (95% CI: 0.2, 0.4) lower an hour after returning to the heat (p<0.001; hour 7). Despite this, core temperatures in each group were statistically equivalent at hours 8 and 9, within ±0.3°C (p≤0.005). Cooling also acutely reduced demand on the heart and improved indices of cardiovascular autonomic function (p≤0.021); however, these outcomes were not different between groups at the end of exposure (p≥0.58). Discussion: Brief air-conditioning exposure during a simulated heat wave caused a robust but transient reduction in core temperature and cardiovascular strain. These findings provide important experimental support for national and international guidance that cooling centers are effective for limiting physiological strain during heat waves. However, they also show that the physiological impacts of brief cooling are temporary, a factor that has not been considered in guidance issued by health agencies. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11651

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations57
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207