MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1893583130 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i3.1723

Aerobic Training with Hyperoxia in Patients with Mild/Severe Brain Injury

2007· article· en· W1893583130 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Élise Busilacchi, Geneviève Cadoret, Alain Steve Comtois

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperoxiaMedicineAerobic exercisePhysical therapyInterval trainingWorkloadPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAerobic capacityInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous studies have shown that aerobic training can induce physiological benefits for brain injured patients. However these benefits seem to be limited. Compared with untrained subjects who follow the same training program, patients with brain injury have a reduced exercise capacity and have difficulty in reaching a high intensity exercise level. A possible alternative to help these patients is to conduct the training in hyperoxia (O2 supply). Studies with untrained subjects have shown that training in hyperoxia enhances the fitness performance. Thus, the purpose of this study was to measure the effects of an aerobic training in hyperoxia with brain-injured patients. Methods: Twelve patients were randomly assigned to either one of two aerobic training protocols: A) 100% O2; B) 20.9% O2 (room air). In both protocols training was on stationary bicycle, 2 sessions per week over 10 weeks. Each session lasted 25 min and was composed of 6 intervals with intensity ranging from 60 to 85% of the max HR. The first interesting result is that all patients were able to reach and sustain the 80-85% level of exercise. To measure the working capacity during the training, we recorded the workload (watts) reached at the third interval (80-85% of the HRmax) of each session. Results: A difference (P < 0.05) in the power output on the ergocycle was observed between the pre test (measured on the first week) and the post test (measured on the 6th week) for subjects trained in hyperoxia but no difference was observed for subjects trained in normoxia. However, no difference was observed in the 6 min walk test for all subjects before and after the aerobic training. There was no difference in oxygen consumption (submaximal test 85% HRmax) between the pre and post tests in both groups of subjects (P=0.18). Nonetheless, subjects trained in hyperoxia showed a 16% average increase in their VO2 (85% HRmax) compared with subjects in normoxia who had a 4% average decrease. Conclusion: Our results show that oxygen supply seems to accelerate the benefits of the aerobic training with brain injured patients. We believe that it is the combination of the training protocol (i.e. intervals) and the oxygen addition that induced the early benefits observed.

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)0.000
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicine→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→