MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison Of Hsp70, Cognition, And Pain Following Passive Heating Or Walking In Older Adults: A Preliminary Analysis

2025· article· en· W4414241670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cayla Clark, Nicole Varone, George A. King, Rhett Rigby

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHsp70TreadmillRandomized controlled trialCognitionHeat stressAerobic exerciseElderly peopleQuantitative sensory testingHeat shock protein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heat shock proteins (HSP) are major components of the cellular chaperone network responsible for regulating protein amyloid aggregation and may be neuroprotective against the deleterious effects of aging. PURPOSE: To observe the level of HSP expression, cognitive performance, and self-perceived pain following one hour of aerobic exercise or whole-body passive heating in older adults. METHODS: Twenty older adults (age: 68.5 + 4.2 years, BMI: 26.9 + 4.3 kg/m2, 11 female) participated in a randomized controlled trial, repeated for time. Participants completed one hour of either moderate intensity walking on a treadmill (TM; 65-75% of age-predicted maximum heart rate), seated passive heating (HEAT) in a controlled environmental heat chamber (35-40 °C, < 40% humidity), or seated control (CON) in a neutral climate (21-24 °C). Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention (CON: n = 6, HEAT: n = 7, TM: n = 7). HSP70 was measured via blood samples with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit for HSP70. Blood samples were collected immediately and 24 hours following each intervention. Cognitive performance was measured after each intervention using computerized software. Pain was assessed via the McGill Pain Questionnaire after each intervention. RESULTS: Detectable amounts of HSP70 were analyzed for 6 participants. There were no statistical differences for HSP70 concentration between groups immediately or 24 hours following each intervention (p > 0.05). Reaction time was faster in HEAT versus CON (p = 0.006), but did not change for time (pre vs. post- HEAT: 1827.6 ± 194.9 vs 1583.0 ± 397.2 ms; CON: 2331.0 ± 853.1 vs 2077.3 ± 643.1 ms; TM: 1904.4 ± 214.5 vs 1682.3 ± 385.1 ms). Measures of cognitive flexibility were higher for HEAT (26.6 ± 6.9) compared to CON (19.9 ± 6.6, p = 0.029), but not TM (23.6 ± 5.0, p = 0.425). Response inhibition was greater for HEAT compared to CON (25.2 ± 9.9 vs 35.2 ± 8.6, p = 0.012), but TM did not differ between groups. Pain was perceived greater for TM and HEAT compared to CON (TM: 28 ± 21, p = 0.003; HEAT: 29 ± 10, p = 0.004; CON: 10 ± 12). CONCLUSION: One bout of aerobic exercise or passive heating may not illicit changes in HSP70 or impair cognition in older adults. There may be an anticipatory psychological affect resulting in different perceptions of pain for passive heating and exercise.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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