Evaluation of a Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Intervention in Individuals with Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). DESIGN: A cohort study with a delayed treatment arm used as a comparator. SETTING: Hyperbaric Medicine Unit, Toronto General Hospital, Ontario, Canada. SUBJECTS: Eighteen patients diagnosed with FM according to the American College of Rheumatology and a score ≥60 on the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive immediate HBOT intervention (n = 9) or HBOT after a 12-week waiting period (n = 9). HBOT was delivered at 100% oxygen at 2.0 atmospheres per session, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks. Safety was evaluated by the frequency and severity of adverse effects reported by patients. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, retention, and HBOT compliance rates. Both groups were assessed at baseline, after HBOT intervention, and at 3 months' follow-up. Validated assessment tools were used to evaluate pain, psychological variables, fatigue, and sleep quality. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients completed the study. One patient withdrew after randomization. HBOT-related adverse events included mild middle-ear barotrauma in three patients and new-onset myopia in four patients. The efficacy of HBOT was evident in most of the outcomes in both groups. This improvement was sustained at 3-month follow-up assessment. CONCLUSION: HBOT appears to be feasible and safe for individuals with FM. It is also associated with improved global functioning, reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression, and improved quality of sleep that was sustained at 3-month follow-up assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".