Effect of pedestal fan use on serum stress biomarkers in older adults exposed to simulated daylong indoor overheating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an urgent need to develop targeted heat-alleviation strategies to protect heat-vulnerable older adults. We have shown that electric fan use had nominal impact on reducing body core temperature and cardiovascular strain during daylong exposure to simulated indoor overheating. Here, we examined the effects of pedestal fan use during exposure to hot conditions on systemic markers of enterocyte damage, immune activation, renal ischemia, and inflammation in older adults. Eighteen adults (8 females; age 72, SD 7 years) underwent 3 randomized 8-h exposures to 36°C, 45% relative humidity seated in front of a fan delivering air speeds of 0 m/s (control), 2 m/s (normal air speed delivered by electric fans), or 4 m/s (air speed used in biophysical modeling). Body core temperature and cardiovascular strain were measured throughout. Blood samples were obtained for analysis of systemic biomarkers before and at the end of exposure. End-exposure core temperature was elevated ~1.0°C from baseline in all conditions. Following heat exposure, IFABP increased by 364 pg/mL [95% CI: 59, 670; p = 0.02] and LBP increased by 3.06 ng/mL [1.12, 5.00; p = 0.002] but was not different between the fan use and control condition (all p ≥ 0.15). No changes were observed for sCD14, IL-6, TNFα, CRP, or NGAL (all p ≥ 0.15). The use of electric fans during daylong exposure to indoor overheating failed to meaningfully mitigate increases in physiological strain or biochemical markers associated with enterocyte damage and immune activation in older adults. 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 | 0.000 | 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".