A randomized, single-blinded cross-over trial of ischemic preconditioning in Raynaud's phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is protective against future ischemia, with brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion leading to the release of circulating endogenous compounds from ischemic cells. IPC may increase vasodilatory substances and improve Raynaud's phenomenon (RP). We hypothesized that IPC would be more effective than sham in RP treatment. Sample size required 18 participants to detect 5 fewer RP attacks per week. Methods This was a randomized single-blinded cross-over trial. The IPC intervention of inflating a standard blood pressure cuff on the upper arm (200 mmHg) and sham intervention (60 mmHg) were performed 3 times per week for 2 weeks, with a 2-week washout period between IPC and sham interventions. Cuff inflation was performed 4 times for 2.5 minutes, with 2.5 minutes between cuff inflation. Participants completed a daily diary on RP disease activity. Results Eighteen participants were enrolled (17 with secondary RP and 1 with primary RP); mean age 60.8 (SD 9.4) years, 89% female; and mean number of RP attacks/2 weeks in screen was 16.9 (SD 11.3). With IPC versus sham, results were not significant including an increase of 0.5 RP episodes/week (SD: 10.0; p = 0.84), decrease of 55.6 minutes per week (SD 516.4; p = 0.66), and a decrease in average severity of 0.4 points (on a scale of 0 to 10) (SD 12.9; p = 0.88). Secondary outcomes were also not significant. Conclusions No significant differences in RP disease activity were found between IPC and sham. This could be due to lack of effect of IPC on RP, too few treatments, or sham having a partial effect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".