EFFECTS OF INTERMITTENT EXPOSURE TO HYPERBARIC OXYGEN FOR THE TREATMENT OF DELAYED ONSET MUSCLE SORENESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of intermittent exposure to hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) for the treatment of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). Eighteen sedentary, female university students were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control group. All subjects performed 300 maximal voluntary eccentric contractions (30 sets of 10 repetitions/minute) on their non-dominant leg (100° – 35° of knee flexion) at a slow speed (30° per second) on the KinCom Dynamometer. HBO treatments consisted of 100% oxygen for 60 minutes at 2.0 ATA while the control group received 21% oxygen at 1.2 ATA for the same amount of time. Both groups received treatment immediately after the induction of DOMS and post exercise. Perceived soreness, isometric strength, quadriceps circumference (girth) and creatine kinase (CK) were assessed pre-exercise (baseline, day 0), 4 hrs post-exercise (day 1), 24 hrs post exercise (day 2), 48 hrs post-exercise (baseline, day 3), and 72 hrs post-exercise (day 4). Both isometric strength and perceived soreness demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) injury to the quadricep muscle for both groups but no difference was seen between groups (p > 0.05). The girth measurement at 10cm above the patella indicated significant (p < 0.05) muscle injury but no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). While the girth measurement at 20cm and serum CK were both nonsignificant within and between groups (p > 0.05). The results of this preliminary study suggest that intermittent exposure to hyperbaric oxygen was not effective in the treatment of delayed onset muscle soreness as indicated by the evaluated markers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".