The Effect of Heat Exposure on Myocardial Blood Flow and Cardiovascular Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heat extremes are associated with greater risk for cardiovascular death. The pathophysiologic mechanisms mediating this association are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the myocardial blood flow (MBF) requirements of heat exposure. DESIGN: Experimental study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04549974). SETTING: Laboratory-based. PARTICIPANTS: 61 participants, comprising 20 healthy young adults (mean age, 28 years), 21 healthy older adults (mean age, 67 years), and 20 older adults with coronary artery disease (CAD) (mean age, 70 years). INTERVENTION: Participants were heated until their core temperature increased 1.5 °C; MBF was measured before heat exposure and at every increase of 0.5 °C in core temperature. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was MBF measured by positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Secondary outcomes included heart rate, blood pressure, and body weight change. RESULTS: At a core temperature increase of 1.5 °C, MBF increased in healthy young adults (change, 0.8 mL/min/g [95% CI, 0.5 to 1.0 mL/min/g]), healthy older adults (change, 0.7 mL/min/g [CI, 0.5 to 0.9 mL/min/g]), and older adults with CAD (change, 0.6 mL/min/g [CI, 0.3 to 0.8 mL/min/g]). This represented a 2.08-fold (CI, 1.75- to 2.41-fold), 1.79-fold (CI, 1.59- to 1.98-fold), and 1.64-fold (CI, 1.41- to 1.87-fold) change, respectively, from preexposure values. Imaging evidence of asymptomatic heat-induced myocardial ischemia was seen in 7 adults with CAD (35%) in post hoc analyses. LIMITATIONS: In this laboratory-based study, heating was limited to about 100 minutes and participants were restricted in movement and fluid intake. Participants refrained from strenuous exercise and smoking; stopped alcohol and caffeine intake; and withheld β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, and nitroglycerin before heating. CONCLUSION: Heat exposure that increases core temperature by 1.5 °C nearly doubles MBF. Changes in MBF did not differ by age or presence of CAD, but some older adults with CAD may experience asymptomatic myocardial ischemia. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".