Humans exercising in the heat: A review on sweat models and a comparison to recent experimental datasets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sweating is a vital thermoregulatory mechanism in humans for maintaining thermal balance during exercise and exposure to hot environments. The development of models that predict sweat rate based on body temperature has been ongoing for over half a century. Here, we compared predicted water loss rates (WLR) from these models to actual observations collected during 780 participant-exposures in three independent laboratory-based experiments. In these experiments, male participants aged 19–50 years cycled or walked at various intensities (metabolic heat productions between 200 and 970 W), in air temperatures ranging from −40°C to 50°C, relative humidities (14% to 95%), and air velocities (<0.2 to 10 m/s), while wearing different clothing ensembles (thermal insulation 0.20 to 3.75 clo). The models’ performances were evaluated by the coefficient of determination (R2) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). Performance varied greatly with a maximum R2 value of 0.5 and RMSE values ranging from 10.4 to 4.9 g/min. Models with a lower sweat onset core temperature setpoint performed better and most models generally underestimated the water loss at higher WLR. Optimization of the core and skin temperature setpoints suggests preferred core temperature setpoints within a narrow range (36.2°C to 36.6°C). Even with optimized inputs, R2 values were around 0.5, meaning only 50% of the variance in observed WLR was explained by the models. Better model consideration of relations between body temperature and sweat rate, and the incorporation of non-thermal exercise-induced sweat promotion, may reduce model underpredictions at higher exercise intensities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it