MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ceiling Fans During Bedrest As A Cooling Strategy For Older Adults During Indoor Overheating

2025· article· en· W4414226378 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glen P. Kenny, Robert D. Meade, Kristina‐Marie T. Janetos, Zuhal Ahmadi, Caroline Li-Maloney, Sarah Johnson, Fergus K. O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverheating (electricity)Ceiling (cloud)Thermal comfortAirflowLimitingBoomCore temperature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent guidance has recommended the use of electric fans as a sustainable cooling alternative to air conditioning for heat vulnerable populations. While fans may increase sweat evaporation and heat loss in healthy, young adults, evidence supporting their use in older adults is scarce. In this context, many health-care facilities and long-term care homes do not have air-conditioning and rely on ceiling fans to provide relief during daylong bedrest. While recent biophysical modelling has suggested that fans may provide a clinically meaningful cooling effect in temperatures below ~34 °C in older adults, the efficacy of ceiling fans in mitigating heat strain in these conditions is unknown. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of ceiling fans on thermal, cardiovascular, and perceptual strain in older adults during bedrest in a simulated overheated indoor environment. METHODS: We assessed the change in core temperature, heat rate, rate-pressure product and thermal discomfort before and after daylong indoor overheating (8-h, 31 °C, 45% relative humidity) with or without the use of a commercially available ceiling fan providing a standard airflow in 20 older adults (12 female, median age 71 [IQR: 68, 73]) resting on a medical bed. Data were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models (baseline adjusted; 2-tailed α = 0.05). RESULTS: The increase in rectal temperature from pre- to end-exposure was 0.1 [95% CI: 0.0, 0.2]°C lower with fan use (0.7 °C (SD 0.3 °C)) compared to control (0.9 °C (0.3 °C); P = 0.023). The pre-end-exposure change in heart rate was reduced 2 [0, 4] beats/min with a fan (11 (4) vs. 9 (5) beats/min in control; P = 0.032) but there were no between-condition differences in rate-pressure product (fan use - control difference: -125 [-474, 223] mmHg·beats/min, 712 (912) vs. 867 (633); P = 0.480) mmHg·beats/min). Self-reported thermal discomfort was reduced 9 [4, 14] units with a fan (12 (8) units) compared to control (3 (8) units; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ceiling fans may improve thermal comfort but only had small benefits on core temperature and heart rate and little influence on rate-pressure product during bed rest when exposed to daylong indoor overheating. Fans should be paired with additional cooling strategies (e.g., ambient cooling). Supported by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207