Estudo do efeito de diferentes protocolos fisioterapêuticos no tratamento da osteoartrite de joelho
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Osteoarthritis (OA), a chronic degenerative disease of high prevalence, is the most common joint disorder, affecting 6% to 12% of the adult population and more than a third of people over 65 years old. Objective: To compare the effects of different physiotherapy protocols in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly. Study Design: A randomized study, controlled, prospective, analytical, parallel, open-label. Subjects: 49 participants aged 60 years and over, with clinical OA of the knee. Methods: Patients were randomized into one of three groups: Aquatic Physiotherapy (GI), Land Physiotherapy (GII) and Control Group (GIII). Exercise programs were performed twice weekly for a period of two months. All participants were assessed before and after program implementation (six-minute walk test (6MWT), body mass index (BMI), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Timed up & Go Test (TUGT). Results: At the end of the study, 45 patients remained. After analyzing the data, we found a statistically significant improvement of all variables in GI and GII when compared to GIII (p <0.05), while among GI and GII there were no significant differences. (p> 0.05). Conclusion: The protocols of land and aquatic therapy resulted in significant improvement in symptoms of pain, stiffness, physical activity, reducing the risk of falls and improves the functional capacity of older adults with knee OA
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".