[The Polish model of physiotherapeutic conduct in rheumatoid arthritis and recommendation of Ottawa Panel].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE AIM: The aim of the research was to evaluate how the suggestions of the Ottawa Panel are implemented with regard to the patents suffering from rheumatoid arthritis in Poland. MATERIAL AND METHOD: in the research there was a test group of 41 people (33 women and 8 men) with rheumatoid arthritis. The criterion that was decisive in this study was the phase of reemission of the illness and whether the patient was taking part in physiotherapeutic treatment. The age of the subjects varied from 25 and 79 (the average age was 53.11). The average duration of the illness was 12.17 years. The research was conducted from November 2006 until September 2007 in Wiktor Dega Orthopedic-Rehabilitation Clinical Hospital (O-RSK4) in Poznan and in 22nd Military Rehabilitation Hospital in Ciechocinek. RESULTS: It was shown in the tested group there was a deep correlation between the joints with movement restrictions and the ones that caused most pain (r = 0.6086 for sum of painful joints with those with movement restrictions). Any link between the presence of deformation within the lower limb and exercising the suggested elements of gait during rehabilitation has not been found. Similarly, there was no dependence between the presence of deformations in the upper limb and the appropriate physiotherapeutic treatment. However, only in one patient the physical treatment recommended by the Panel was not used at all. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the Ottawa Panel recommendations is implemented in the Polish model. A big part of patients has access to rehabilitation and usually the physical treatment techniques that proved to be the most beneficial are used. However, certain changes should be introduced to kinesis therapy, which tends to be focused more on joint deformation than on global work on the improvement of functionality and thus--the quality of patient's life.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".