Foot immersion with and without neck cooling reduces self-reported environmental symptoms in older adults exposed to simulated indoor overheating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While foot immersion and neck cooling have been recommended for protecting heat-vulnerable groups, recent evidence does not support their efficacy for mitigating increases in physiological heat strain in older adults. However, their influence on self-reported environmental symptoms and mood-state remains unclear. Seventeen older adults (nine females, median [interquartile range] age: 72 [69–74]) completed three randomized heat exposures (6-h; 38°C, 35% relative humidity) with no cooling (control), foot immersion to mid-calf in 20°C water for the final 40-min of each hour (foot immersion), or foot immersion with a wet towel (20°C) around the neck (foot immersion with neck cooling). Core temperature, skin temperature, and heart rate areas under the curve (AUC) were assessed as indicators of cumulative physiological strain. Environmental symptom scores (68-item environmental symptoms questionnaire) and mood disturbance (40-item profile of mood states questionnaire) were evaluated at end-heating (adjusted for pre-exposure). Core temperature AUC was not different between conditions (p = 0.418). However, the skin temperature and heart rate AUCs were 11.8°C · h [95% confidence interval: 8.1, 15.5] and 12.5 bpm · h [0.1, 24.8] lower for foot immersion and 16.6°C · h [12.9, 20.3] and 19.6 bpm · h [7.2, 32.0] lower for foot immersion with neck cooling compared to control (p ≤ 0.032). Environmental symptom scores were 0.8-fold [0.6, 1.0] lower for both foot immersion with and without neck cooling, compared to control (both p = 0.036). Mood disturbance was not different between conditions (both p ≥ 0.275). Foot immersion with and without neck cooling reduces self-reported environmental symptoms in older adults despite having little effect on physiological heat strain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".