An overview of ischemic preconditioning in exercise performance: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is an attractive method for athletes owing to its potential to enhance exercise performance. However, the effectiveness of the IPC intervention in the field of sports science remains mitigated. The number of cycles of ischemia and reperfusion, as well as the duration of the cycle, varies from one study to another. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive review examining the IPC literature in sports science. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed (MEDLINE) (from 1946 to May 2018), Web of Science (sport sciences) (from 1945 to May 2018), and EMBASE (from 1974 to May 2018). We included all studies investigating the effects of IPC on exercise performance in human subjects. To assess scientific evidence for each study, this review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The electronic database search generated 441 potential articles that were screened for eligibility. A total of 52 studies were identified as eligible and valid for this systematic review. The studies included were of high quality, with 48 of the 52 studies having a randomized, controlled trial design. Most studied showed that IPC intervention can be beneficial to exercise performance. However, IPC intervention seems to be more beneficial to healthy subjects who wish to enhance their performance in aerobic exercises than athletes. Thus, this systematic review highlights that a better knowledge of the mechanisms generated by the IPC intervention would make it possible to optimize the protocols according to the characteristics of the subjects with the aim of suggesting to the subjects the best possible experience of IPC intervention.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it