Effects of Hyperbaric Oxygen on Recovery From Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy could accelerate recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage in humans. DESIGN: Pretest-posttest design with random assignment to either a treatment (HBO) or placebo control (sham) group. SETTING: University of Alberta and Misericordia Hospital, Edmonton. PARTICIPANTS: 12 healthy male students (24.2 +/- 3.2 years) who were unaccustomed to strenuous eccentric exercise of the calf muscles. INTERVENTIONS: All subjects performed a strenuous eccentric exercise protocol designed to elicit muscle damage within the right gastrocnemius muscle. Subjects subsequently received either HBO (100% oxygen at 253 kPa [2.5 ATA] for 60 min; n = 6) or sham (atmospheric air at 132 kPa [1.3 ATA] for 60 min; n = 6) treatment conditions. The first treatment was administered 3-4 hours after damage, with a second and third at 24 and 48 hours after the first, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependent variables included peak torque at 0.52 radians/s, peak isometric torque, and muscular endurance using isokinetic dynamometry; muscle cross-sectional area using magnetic resonance imaging; inorganic phosphate levels and T2 relaxation time using 31P and 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy; pain sensation and unpleasantness using the Descriptor Differential Scale. These variables were assessed at baseline and until day 5 postdamage. RESULTS: There was little evidence of a difference in recovery rate between the HBO and sham groups. Faster recovery was observed in the HBO group only for isometric peak torque and pain sensation and unpleasantness. CONCLUSIONS: HBO cannot be recommended as an effective method of treatment of this form of muscle injury.
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".