Electric Fan Use in Replicated 8-Hour Extreme Heat Event: Sex Differences in Systemic Biomarkers and Thermoregulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO), recommend different temperature thresholds for electric fan use during heat events (CDC: 32.2℃, WHO: 40℃). Nonetheless, these guidelines do not account for the fan’s physiological effects on immune and inflammatory responses in males and females. This study evaluated the efficacy of electric fan use in mitigating immune function, inflammation, and organ function during an eight-hour simulated extreme heat event replicating conditions in Hangzhou, China, on the August 3, 2024 (semi-hourly temperature and humidity fluctuations; average temperature: 39.9℃ [37.6-41.1℃], RH: 47.1% [40-57%]). Thirty-two young adults (16 males and 16 females) underwent three eight-hour trials: (1) no electric fan with limited fluid intake (500mL; Con), (2) fan use with limited fluid intake (500mL; Fan) and (3) fan use with sufficient fluid intake (3L; Fan+Fluid). Core temperature, cardiovascular responses, plasma electrolytes, stress hormones, inflammatory markers, and organ function biomarkers were assessed. Fan+Fluid significantly reduced core temperature, stress hormone levels, inflammatory responses, and organ function biomarkers in both sexes (all p <0.05). Notably, Fan+Fluid greatly reduced IL-6, IL-1β, ALT and BUN by 23.9%, 32.5%, 15.9% and 23.6%, respectively, compared to CON, despite the core temperature difference is marginal. Females exhibited consistently higher stress hormone levels, inflammatory responses, and organ function markers than males across all trials (all p <0.05). These findings highlight the benefits of electric fan use in prolonged extreme heat and suggest that females may require more intense cooling interventions due to heightened inflammatory and organ stress responses.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".