An Investigation into the Effect of Blood Flow Restriction on Pain and Muscular Endurance in Healthy Human Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study compared the effect of exercise during full, partial (intermittent) and no BFR on pain and muscular endurance. Design Within-subject repeated measures cross-over study comparing full BFR (200 mmHg), partial BFR (100 mmHg) and no (control) BFR during hand-grip exercises of a bulb dynamometer (60 per minute) at 30% of their one-repetition maximum of grip strength. Setting Laboratory. Participants 20 student volunteers (male = 14, age = 22-29 years). Main outcome measures Time to exhaustion and pain perception at minute intervals during handgrip exercises. Results There were fewer (77.0 ± 34.7) handgrip exercise repetitions during full BFR compared with partial BFR (125.1 ± 37.7, p < 0.001) and fewer repetitions for partial BFR compared with no BFR (147.6 ± 11.3 repetitions, p = 0.026). Pain intensity was higher for full BFR compared with partial BFR (p = 0.045) and higher for partial BFR compared with no BFR (p < 0.001). Participants selected more total, sensory and affective pain descriptors of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire during full BFR compared with partial BFR and no BFR. Conclusion Full BFR produced severe exercise-induced pain so partial BFR may be a more acceptable training and rehabilitation aid.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".