Therapeutic efficacy analysis of vitro shock wave therapy for subacromial bursitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To analyze the clinical therapeutic efficacy of vitro shock wave therapy for subacromial bursitis.Methods 80 cases of subacromial bursitis patients visited the Shenzhen Longgang Central Hospital Rehabilitation during January 2007 to December 2008 were chosen,randomly divided into two groups,40 cases of treatment group,40 cases of control group.in addition to the physical therapy of control group,treatment group were applied Shenzhen Huikang HKSW-O type Extracorporeal shock wave therapy machine for therapy,operating voltage 6～10 KV,shock wave frequency about 60 times/min,The number of impact of each treatment 1 000～1 300 times,1st on alternate days;control group were only applied intermediate frequency power,ultrashort,ultrasonic methods of three kinds of physiotherapy,1st daily.patients of two group had 10-day therapy,Simplified the McGill pain questionnaire(SF-MPQ) was used for assessment before and after treatment.Results after treatment,4 items assessment of pain rating index(PRI,feeling,emtion),visual analogue score(VAS),present pain intensity(PPI) in treatment group,the pain relieve were surpass to the control group(P0.05).Conclusions the treatment of vitro shock wave therapy for subacromial bursitis is fast,safe and effective.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".