Effect of ceramic-impregnated "thermoflow" gloves on patients with Raynaud's syndrome: randomized, placebo-controlled study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of ceramic impregnated gloves in the treatment of Raynaud's syndrome. DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Teaching hospital outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-three patients meeting the "Pal" criteria for Raynaud's syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment period of three months with use of ceramic-impregnated gloves. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points: Pain visual analogue scale ratings and diary; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, Hand questionnaire; Jamar grip strength; Purdue board test of hand dexterity. Secondary end points: Infrared skin temperature measurements; seven-point Likert scale rating of treatment. RESULTS: In 60 participants with complete data, improvements were noted in the visual analogue scale rating (p=0.001), DASH score (p=0.001), Jamar grip strength (p=0.002), infrared skin fingertip temperature (p=0.003), Purdue hand dexterity test (p=0.0001) and the Likert scale (p=0.001) with ceramic gloves over the placebo cotton gloves. CONCLUSION: The ceramic-impregnated "thermoflow" gloves have a clinically important effect in Raynaud's syndrome.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".