Wie effektiv ist die Kur?: Eine systematische Übersicht randomisierter Studien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the context of general financial constraints within many national health services spa treatment is being looked at ever more critically in various European countries. An important argument against spa treatment has been the supposed lack of evidence for its efficacy. This analysis was undertaken to gather firm data bearing on this problem. METHODS: Several data bases were searched systematically for randomized studies of spa treatment. Only those were included in which one patient cohort had received spa treatment, while the control cohort had been treated for the same ailment on an ambulant basis at home. Nonrandomized studies were excluded. RESULTS: Only three randomized studies were found in which two patient cohorts, one with and one without spa treatment, were compared (postsalpingitis, back pain and osteoarthritis, respectively). In all three the evidence indicated some additional benefit from spa treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The data are not sufficient to prove the benefit of spa treatment, nor are they adequate to disprove it. More evidence-based studies are necessary to arrive at rationally based decisions relating to the efficacy of spa treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.048 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".