AVALIAÇÃO DA DOR E FUNÇÃO EM PACIENTES COM LOMBALGIA CRÔNICA SUBMETIDOS À ELETROESTIMULAÇÃO COM CORRENTE DIADINÂMICA DE BERNARD ASSOCIADA OU NÃO À IONTOFORESE.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain is caused by conditions such as: congenital, degenerative, inflammatory, infectious, tumor and mechanical postural. The physical therapy modalities may be useful in this situation, highlighting the electrotherapy and the use of the same seeking of iontophoresis application. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the effects on pain and function, of Bernard´s Diadynamic current associated or not the iontophoresis with sodium salicylate 3% in patients with chronic low back pain. The sample comprised 21 patients who were randomly divided into two groups: one received the application Bernard's Diadynamic Current, composed of 10 patients (G1) and another was associated with iontophoresis, composed of 11 patients (G2). It was used as an instrument of evaluation, the Visual Analog Scale of Pain (VAS), the Dolorimeter of Pressure, and the Oswestry questionnaire and McGill. Comparing the results with the use of VAS, the treatment was effective in two ways used, as compared to the Oswestry questionnaire, the treatment was beneficial only with the Bernard's Diadynamic Current associated with iontophoresis. However, the use of the Dolorimeter of Pressure as the McGill questionnaire, there was no significant difference between the two forms of treatment. It follows, then, that the Bernard´s Diadynamic current associated with iontophoresis, are effective in improving function in patients with low back pain, this being assessed by the Oswestry questionnaire. For the treatment of pain, assessed by VAS, both Bernard´s Diadynamic current isolated as the Bernard´s Diadynamic current associated with iontophoresis are effective in patients with chronic low back pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".