The Effect of Therapeutic Whirlpool and Hot Packs on Hand Volume During Rehabilitation After Distal Radius Fracture: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Edema is a possibility with all heating modalities due to the increase in local blood flow caused by vasodilation. Despite the frequent application of superficial heat modalities, their relative effect on hand volume has not been determined for the upper extremity. The objective of this study was to compare the immediate effects of hot packs and whirlpool on hand volume for patients with distal radius fracture (DRF) and to determine whether any changes in volume between these modalities were still present 30 minutes after heat application. Finally, to determine whether there were any differences in volume change between groups after 3 repeated therapy visits. METHODS: Sixty patients with clinically healed DRFs were divided into 2 groups. Half received therapeutic whirlpool at each therapy visit, and the other half received a moist hot pack treatment for 3 consecutive visits. Hand volume was measured before heat, after heat, and at the end of each 30-minute therapy session. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between groups immediately after heat application, as patients in the whirlpool group experienced an initial volume increase greater than those who received a hot pack. When remeasured after a hand therapy session approximately 30 minutes later, this group difference in volume change was no longer significant. The overall change in volume from enrollment in the study to completion of the study 3 weeks later was not statistically different between groups. CONCLUSION: Whirlpool is a potential consideration when selecting a heat modality for patients with DRF.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it