MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788127364

How Can Personalized Tourniquet Systems Accelerate Rehabilitation of Wounded Warriors, Professional Athletes and Orthopaedic Patients?

2016· article· en· W2788127364 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jim A. McEwen, Jeswin Jeyasurya, Johnny G. Owens

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourniquetRehabilitationAthletesMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyCuffBlood flow restrictionSports medicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rehabilitation of wounded warriors, professional athletes and orthopaedic patients has profound health, economic, psychological, and social implications. This has motivated development and investigation of a new technique, Personalized Blood Flow Restriction Training (PBFRT), which may substantially reduce recovery time and improve rehabilitation. PBFRT involves exercising well below maximum intensity using an optimal personalized restrictive pressure (PRP) in a tourniquet cuff encircling a limb, for brief and repeated exercise periods according to a rehabilitation protocol. Although the exact mechanism is not fully understood, many studies have shown beneficial effects of blood flow restricted training on skeletal muscle strength and hypertrophy, and preliminary evidence suggests it may also promote bone formation. Advances in the development of modern tourniquet systems made within our group in Canada allow PBFRT to be performed with optimal safety and repeatability, establishing a PRP that automatically accounts for important variables including individual limb shape and size, muscle tone, blood pressure, gender, race, tourniquet cuff characteristics and application technique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207