The effect of foot immersion and neck cooling on cardiac autonomic function in older adults exposed to indoor overheating: a randomized crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foot immersion and neck cooling are recommended cooling strategies for protecting heat-vulnerable persons during heat waves. While we recently showed that these strategies do not limit core temperature increases in older adults during prolonged heat exposure, we did observe small reductions in heart rate. Expanding on these findings, we examined the effects of foot immersion with and without neck cooling on cardiac autonomic function. Seventeen adults (9 females; 65–81 years) underwent 3 randomized, 6 h exposures to 38 °C and 35% relative humidity with: no cooling (control), foot immersion (20 °C water), or foot immersion with a wet towel (20 °C) around the neck. Cardiac autonomic responses were measured at baseline and end-exposure. These included heart rate variability, cardiac and systolic blood pressure responses to standing, indexed via the 30:15 ratio and supine-to-standing systolic pressure change, respectively, and baroreflex sensitivity during repeated sit-to-stand maneuvers. The 30:15 ratio was 0.04 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.07] greater with foot immersion and neck cooling (1.08 (SD: 0.04)) relative to control (1.04 (0.06); P = 0.018). Similarly, standing systolic blood pressure was elevated 9 [0, 17] mmHg with foot immersion and neck cooling ( P = 0.043). That said, neither difference remained statistically significant after adjusting for multiplicity ( Padjusted ≥ 0.054). No differences in 30:15 ratio or standing systolic blood pressure were observed with foot immersion alone, while heart rate variability and baroreflex sensitivity were unaffected by either cooling intervention. While foot immersion with neck cooling potentially improved cardiac autonomic responses in older adults exposed to simulated indoor overheating, these effects were small and of questionable clinical importance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".