Comparação entre exercícios de respiração profunda e espirometria de incentivo no pós-operatório de cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of deep breathing exercises (DBE) and the flow-oriented incentive spirometry (IS) in patients undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) through the following variables: forced vital capacity - FVC, forced expiratory volume in 1 second - FEV(1), maximal respiratory pressures and oxygen saturation. METHODS: Thirty six patients in CABG postoperative period underwent thirty minutes of non-invasive ventilation during the first 24 hours after extubation and were randomly shared into two groups as following: DBE (n=18) and IS (n=18). The spirometric variables were assessed on the preoperative period and seventh postoperative day (POD). The respiratory muscle strength and oxygen saturation were assessed on the preoperative period, first, second and seventh POD. RESULTS: The groups were considered homogeneous in relation to the demographic and surgical variables. It has been noted fall in the values of FVC and FEV(1) between the preoperative period and the seventh POD, but without significant differences between groups. The maximal respiratory pressures showed drop in the first POD but with and partial recovery until the seventh POD, also without significant differences between groups. The oxygen saturation was the only variable that was completely recovered on the seventh POD, also without significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: There were not observed significant differences in maximal respiratory pressures, spirometric variables and oxygen saturation in patients undergone deep breathing exercises and flow-oriented incentive spirometry after coronary artery bypass grafting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".