MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1939838933 · doi:10.1007/s00005-015-0363-9

Impact of Whole Body Cryotherapy at −110 °C on Subjects with Arterial Hypertension

2015· article· en· W1939838933 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Missmann, M. Himsl, Erich Mur, Hanno Ulmer, Peter Marschang

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsWorkers Compensation Board of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCryotherapyDiastoleInternal medicineCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole body cryotherapy (WBC) in a cryo-chamber as a medical treatment was first established in Japan in the 1980s, later in Central Europe, and is now becoming more popular also in the United States. The exposure to extreme, non-physiological environmental conditions in a cryo-chamber at -110 °C may exceed the normal adaption capacity. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of WBC on blood pressure (BP) readings in adult subjects with rheumatic disorders and normal or moderately elevated BP. A sample of 23 subjects (8 female, 15 male) which were recruited according to their pathology between the age of 35 and 69 years undergoing 21 WBC applications was divided into three groups: a group of subjects with anti-hypertensive therapy, a group of subjects with mild arterial hypertension without medical treatment, and a normotensive control-group. A total of 483 BP readings were taken immediately before and after each WBC application. The systolic and diastolic BP were recorded, and the mean arterial pressure, and the amplitude of BP were calculated. A statistically significant rise of BP after WBC was found in the whole sample and in the normotensive group. Over the course of time, no significant change of BP behavior was observed, except for normotensive subjects, who showed a wider range in their systolic BP values. Generally accepted exclusion criteria were applied, and in our sample group WBC was safe with respect to unwanted BP alterations for adult subjects under 70 years-regardless of a pre-existing untreated mild or pharmacologically treated arterial hypertension. Greater changes of BP values might infrequently occur, so an individual monitoring of subjects is necessary.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivum Immunologiae et Therapiae ExperimentalisSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207