Effect of a short ischaemic preconditioning protocol on 100-m front crawl performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of our study was to analyse the effect of a single-cycle ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) protocol on performance in the 100-m front crawl swimming modality. Methods Overall, 16 swimmers were recruited: 8 female athletes (12.9 ± 0.88 years) and 8 male athletes (13.1 ± 0.88 years). In a randomized crossover design, all participants performed a 100-m front crawl sprint preceded by an IPC or placebo cycle. In the IPC trial, a pneumatic cuff was attached to the proximal thigh and was inflated at a pressure equivalent to 80% of arterial occlusion and remained inflated for 5 min (ischaemia); in the placebo trial, the cuff remained inflated for the same amount of time, but at low external pressure levels (20 mm Hg). The volunteers started the test 5 min after cuff pressure release (reperfusion). Results It was not possible to verify significant differences within the time (seconds) required to complete the test between the IPC and placebo interventions (75.68 ± 7.2 and 75.75 ± 8.1 s, respectively; p = 0.916). Conclusions Therefore, we can conclude that the tested IPC protocol does not seem to be sufficient to provide performance improvement in 100-m front crawl in young athletes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".