MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125519421 · doi:10.1136/bjsm.37.6.516

Effect of hyperbaric oxygen on oxygen uptake and measurements in the blood and tissues in a normobaric environment

2003· article· en· W2125519421 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair N.H. Hodges, J S Delaney, J Lecomte, V J Lacroix, David Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperbaric oxygenAnesthesiaOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine venous partial pressure of oxygen (PvO(2)), transcutaneous oxygen tension (tcPO(2)), and VO(2)MAX in a normobaric environment after a single hyperbaric oxygen (HBO(2)) treatment. METHODS: This was a prospective study of conditions after the intervention compared with baseline. The participants were 10 moderately trained (VO(2)MAX = 57.6 ml/kg/min) men. Two HBO(2) treatments consisting of breathing 95% oxygen at 2.5 atmospheres absolute (ATA) for 90 minutes were administered on non-consecutive days. Baseline testing included measures of VO(2)MAX, tcPO(2), and anthropometry. At 6.0 (1.0) minutes after the first HBO(2) treatment, a VO(2)MAX test was performed. After the second HBO(2) treatment, leg and chest tcPO(2) and PvO(2) were monitored for 60 minutes. RESULTS: VO(2)MAX, running time, and peak blood lactate were not altered after the HBO(2) treatment. Leg tcPO(2) was lower (p = 0.003) and chest tcPO(2) was unchanged after the HBO(2) treatment compared with baseline values. PvO(2) was significantly (p<0.001) lower in the first three minutes after treatment than subsequent values, but no other differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: A single HBO(2) treatment at 2.5 ATA for 90 minutes does not raise PvO(2), tcPO(2), or VO(2)MAX in a normobaric, normoxic environment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207