Effects of pedestal-mounted electric fans on self-reported symptoms and mood-state in older adults exposed to indoor overheating during a simulated heatwave: an exploratory analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence from modelling and laboratory-based studies showed that electric fans are ineffective at meaningfully lowering core temperature in older adults at air temperatures of 36 °C. However, their influence on self-reported environmental symptoms and mood-state during daylong use in hot indoor environments remains unclear. Eighteen older adults (8 females, median (interquartile range); 72 (67–76 years)) completed three randomized 8 h heat exposures (36 °C, 45% relative humidity) with a fan generating air speeds of 0 (no fan, control), 2, or 4 m/s at the front of the body positioned 1 m away. Participants were seated throughout, except for 4 × 10 min periods of simulated activities of daily living (stepping (∼2.25 metabolic equivalents (METs)). Core temperature, mean skin temperature, and heart rate areas under the curve (AUCs, hours 0–8) were calculated to assess cumulative physiological strain. Total Symptom Scores (68-item Environmental Symptoms Questionnaire) as well as Total Mood Disturbance and Energy Index (40-item Profile of Mood States questionnaire) were evaluated at end-heating (adjusted for pre-exposure). Core temperature, mean skin temperatures, and heart rate AUCs were not different between conditions (all p ≥ 0.087). Total Symptom Scores were 0.89-fold [0.81, 0.97] lower with fan use (combined across speeds) compared to no fan ( p = 0.009). Energy Index scores were 2.4 points [0.8, 4.0] higher with fan use compared to no fan ( p = 0.004). However, mood disturbance was not significantly different between conditions ( p = 0.345). Our exploratory analysis show that fans can reduce self-reported symptoms and increase perceived energy levels in older adults in overheated indoor environments, despite no meaningful attenuation of physiological strain. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05695079.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".