Long‐term comparative trial of two different physiotherapy techniques; postural drainage with percussion and autogenic drainage, in the treatment of cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In N. America, over the past decade, various airway clearance techniques (ACT) have been introduced for the treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF). We hypothesized that autogenic drainage (AD), an ACT developed in Belgium would be as effective as postural drainage with percussion (PD) in treating patients with CF. METHODS: Thirty-six CF patients, aged 12-18 years, with Shwachman score 65-98, were enrolled in a 2-year cross-over trial. Patients were matched as pairs and members of each pair were randomly assigned to two groups. For the first study year, Group A performed PD while Group B performed AD. At the end of 1 year Groups A and B crossed over physiotherapy techniques. Clinical status and pulmonary function (FVC, FEV(1), FEF(25-75)) were measured at 3 monthly intervals. Only results from the first year of the study are reported, as 10 out of 17 patients who had completed performing AD for the first year refused to change back to PD for the second year. RESULTS: During the first year of the study, both the AD and PD groups demonstrated improved pulmonary function with no significant difference between the two groups. Change in FVC and FEV(1) percent predicted for Groups A and B was 0.47 ± 1.65(se) versus 2.35 ± 1.51(se) and 2.09 ± 2.2(se) versus 0.92 ± 2.25(se). However, CF patients exhibited a marked preference for the AD technique. Results suggest that both AD and PD are effective methods of performing physiotherapy for CF patients and that the benefits of either technique are enhanced by measures which encourage adherence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".