MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117653260 · doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101117

Bioceramic arm garment does not increase diameter of brachial artery and blood flow—Compliance and biceps microcirculation in male recreational sports practitioners at rest: A single blinded randomized cross-over study

2025· article· en· W7117653260 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Chamoux, Mark Rakobowchuk, Anne-Fleur Gaston, Laurent Mourot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicepsBrachial arteryMicrocirculationForearmDouble blindedRandomized controlled trialCross-sectional study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Use of a far-infrared (FIR) reflective arm garment for 40-minutes at rest in physically active men did not induce significant effects on brachial artery diameter, carotid–radial pulse wave velocity, tHb, HHb, or O₂Hb and skin temperature. • Under the conditions of our study (i.e., at rest in physically active men), the FIR arm garment are likely ineffective in improving micro- and macrovascular function. • From a practical standpoint, this technology is intended to be used during exercise or recovery. Based on our experimental design, it appears that the FIR arm garment would be ineffective in inducing any vascular benefit at rest if worn for 40 minutes before exercise and during the recovery period, when hemodynamic is stabilized. Interest in clothing that reflects far infrared (FIR) radiation naturally emitted by the body during and after exercise has increased based on the assumption that this can increase arterial and venous blood flow. Indeed, in vitro and animal model research seems to report promising effects of FIR on the nitric oxide pathway and microcirculation. However, to date, there are no well controlled studies investigating the effect of FIR garments on resting microvascular and macrovascular function in humans. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the acute effects of wearing FIR arm garments on vascular function. Thirty-one male recreational sport practitioners (4.9 ± 3.3 h of sport/week; 32.1 ± 9.5 years; 178.6 ± 7.9 cm; 74.1 ± 11.2 kg; 23.2 ± 2.5 kg/m 2 (mean ± SD)) completed 4 visits: repeatability measurements (2 sessions), placebo, and FIR conditions in random order. Measurements (i.e., without arm garment) of brachial artery diameter and blood flow, carotid-radial pulse wave velocity (CR-PWV), as well as total-, oxy-, and deoxy-hemoglobin were completed after 15 min of rest and repeated after wearing FIR or placebo arm garments for 25 min, 40 min, and 50 min. Two skin sensors were positioned on the upper arm and the forearm to continuously record skin temperature and pressure under the garment. The main results were that at all time points, compared to placebo, FIR did not significantly affect brachial artery diameter and blood flow, CR-PWV, or total hemoglobin (condition × time interaction: p = 0.22, 0.54, 0.51, 0.96, respectively). Moreover, no significant condition × time × sensor position interaction effect was found in skin temperature ( p = 0.99). However, pressure under garment was significantly higher under the FIR condition compared to placebo (+53%, p = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: FIR: 1.64–2.92 mmHg; placebo: 0.88–2.14 mmHg) while microvascular parameters were unchanged. Contrary to our hypothesis, wearing an FIR arm garment at rest does not lead to an improvement of either macro or microvascular function. These results suggest limited benefits in the sports context, notably during recovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health ScienceSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207