Diferentes modalidades terapêuticas no tratamento da tendinopatia do supraespinhoso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Verificar a eficácia de diferentes modalidades terapêuticas no tratamento da tendinopatia do supraespinhoso. Métodos: Ensaio clínico, de abordagem quantitativa e longitudinal, realizado de janeiro de 2010 a outubro de 2011 na Clínica de Fisioterapia da Universidade de Ribeirão Preto (UNAERP). Foram selecionados 24 pacientes adultos entre 40 e 50 anos, de ambos os gêneros, com diagnóstico de tendinopatia do supraespinhoso. Eles foram divididos em três grupos: Grupo 1 - ultrassom e cinesioterapia convencional; Grupo 2 - laser e cinesioterapia convencional; e Grupo 3 - cinesioterapia aprimorada. Como critérios de avaliação, foram utilizados os questionários de DASH e McGill e a avaliação da amplitude de movimento (ADM) de flexão, extensão, abdução, adução, rotação interna (RI) e rotação externa (RE). Na análise estatística, foi aplicado o Modelo de Regressão com Efeitos Mistos e o teste Kruskal-Wallis, através do software SAS® 9.0. Resultados: Após os tratamentos aplicados, os 3 grupos apresentaram melhora significativa da ADM (p
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".