Effects of whole-body vibration or resistive-vibration exercise on blood clotting and related biomarkers: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole-body vibration (WBV) and resistive vibration exercise (RVE) are utilized as countermeasures against bone loss, muscle wasting, and physical deconditioning. The safety of the interventions, in terms of the risk of inducing undesired blood clotting and venous thrombosis, is not clear. We therefore performed the present systematic review of the available scientific literature on the issue. The review was conducted following the guidelines by the Space Biomedicine Systematic Review Group, based on Cochrane review guidelines. The relevant context or environment of the studies was "ground-based environment"; space analogs or diseased conditions were not included. The search retrieved 801 studies; 77 articles were selected for further consideration after an initial screening. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The main variables related to blood markers involved angiogenic and endothelial factors, fibrinolysis and coagulation markers, cytokine levels, inflammatory and plasma oxidative stress markers. Functional and hemodynamic markers involved blood pressure measurements, systemic vascular resistance, blood flow and microvascular and endothelial functions. The available evidence suggests neutral or potentially positive effects of short- and long-term interventions with WBV and RVE on variables related to blood coagulation, fibrinolysis, inflammatory status, oxidative stress, cardiovascular, microvascular and endothelial functions. No significant warning signs towards an increased risk of undesired clotting and venous thrombosis were identified. If confirmed by further studies, WBV and RVE could be part of the countermeasures aimed at preventing or attenuating the muscular and cardiovascular deconditioning associated with spaceflights, permanence on planetary habitats and ground-based simulations of microgravity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".