MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197447841 · doi:10.3822/ijtmb.v14i3.573

Effect of Ice Massage to Head and Spine on Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Variability in Patients with Hypertension: a Pilot Study

2021· article· en· W3197447841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Mooventhan, B Bharati, L. Nivethitha, Manjunath NK

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureHeart rateMassageHeart rate variabilityCardiologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ice massage is one of the common hydrotherapeutic procedures. The current study is first of its kind, conducted to evaluate the effect of ice massage to head and spine on blood pressure and heart rate variability in patients with hypertension. Materials and Methods: Fifteen hypertensive subjects with the mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of 48.87 ± 11.17 yrs were recruited and underwent only one session of ice massage to head and spine for 20 min. Blood pressure and heart rate variability were assessed before and immediately after the intervention. Results: Results of this study showed a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (p = <.001), diastolic blood pressure (p < .001) and heart rate (p = .012), and a significant increase in R-R Interval (the intervals between adjacent R waves in the electro cardiogram) (p = .001) in the posttest assessments compared to its respective pre-test assessments. Conclusion: Results suggest that 20 min of ice massage to head and spine may reduce blood pressure and heart rate in patients with hypertension. However, there is no evidence that this provides any significant clinical impact for the patient.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & PracticeSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207