LETTER TO THE EDITOR: COMMENT: Bilateral Limb Remote Ischemic Preconditioning ImprovesAnaerobic Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
applied to the lower limb before exercise performance: one thigh [3-8] and bilateral thigh [9-16]. None of these RIPC protocols compared the effect of RIPC on different limbs, sets or time of occlusion/reperfusion. The finding of Kraus et al. on a single arm RIPC protocol is consistent with our finding on a Wingate test which we did not observe to have significant change in power (mean and peak) with the same RIPC protocol (4 * 5 minutes occlusion (at 50 mm Hg above systolic blood pressure) for 5 minutes of reperfusion) [17]. Future researches on RIPC and sports could: 1compare both unilatartel and bilaterral RIPC in the same group of subjects; 2compare unilateral and bilateral RIPC on the arm vs the thigh in the same group of subjects ;and 3when using RIPC, it is also important to indicate the amount of pressure used in the ischemia cycle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".