Dor lombar gestacional: impacto de um protocolo de fisioterapia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Verificar o efeito do protocolo de fisioterapia em lombalgia gestacional Metodo: Foram avaliadas e tratadas 14 gravidas, com idade media de 22 anos e no quinto mes gestacional. Esta amostra de conveniencia foi dividida em grupo controle e tratado, sendo distribuidos aleatoriamente para a composicao dos grupos. Ambos foram submetidos a uma anamnese e responderam ao questionario generico de avaliacao da qualidade de vida MOS SF-36 e ao questionario da dor de McGill durante o tratamento. O grupo tratamento foi submetido ao protocolo de fisioterapia. Resultados: Foram comparadas as pontuacoes do questionario SF-36 de duas maneiras: entre os grupos tratamento e controle (nos 1o, 2o e 3o meses separadamente) e dentro de cada grupo comparando os tres meses de coleta. Foi utilizado o teste de Friedman para comparar os grupos na variavel mes. Conclusao: O protocolo de exercicios fisioterapicos no tratamento da lombalgia foi eficaz por produzir um alivio e uma diminuicao na intensidade da dor lombar, possibilitando a melhora na qualidade de vida dessas gestantes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".