Early Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Preserves Muscle Size and Quality and Maintains Systemic Levels of Signaling Mediators of Muscle Growth and Inflammation in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To investigate the effects of an early neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) protocol on muscle quality and size as well as signaling mediators of muscle growth and systemic inflammation in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Design. Two‐arm, single‐blinded, parallel‐group, randomized, controlled trial with a blinded assessment. Setting. Trauma intensive care unit at a university hospital. Participants. Forty consecutive patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) secondary to TBI were prospectively recruited within the first 24 hours following admission. Interventions. The intervention group (NMES; n = 20) received a daily session of NMES on the rectus femoris muscle for five consecutive days (55 min/each session). The control group (n = 20) received usual care. Main Outcome Measures. Muscle echogenicity and thickness were evaluated by ultrasonography. A daily blood sample was collected to assess circulating levels of insulin‐like growth factor I (IGF‐I), inflammatory cytokines, and matrix metalloproteinases (MMP). Results. Both groups were similar at baseline. A smaller change in muscle echogenicity and thickness (difference between Day 1 and Day 7) was found in the control group compared to the NMES group (29.9 ± 2.1 vs. 3.0 ± 1.2, p < 0.001; −0.79 ± 0.12 vs. −0.01 ± 0.06, p < 0.001, respectively). Circulating levels of IGF‐I, pro‐inflammatory cytokines (IFN‐y), and MMP were similar between groups. Conclusion. An early NMES protocol can preserve muscle size and quality and maintain systemic levels of signaling mediators of muscle growth and inflammation in patients with TBI. This trial is registered with https://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br under number RBR-2db .
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".