MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555829457

노인의 만성 무릎 통증에 대한 전기 근육 자극요법의 적용 효과

2005· article· ko· W2555829457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
석소현, 김귀분

Bibliographic record

Venue동서간호학연구지 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyStimulationMcGill Pain QuestionnaireChronic painRandomized controlled trialKnee painFunctional electrical stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVisual analogue scaleSurgeryOsteoarthritisInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study is to examine the effect of electrical muscle stimulation therapy on chronic knee pain for aged. Method: Design was randomized one-group pretest-posttest design. Samples were total 15 elderly on 60 years old and above with chronic knee pain. Measures were S-F McGill Pain Questuionnaire and Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale for knee pain. Electrical muscle stimulation therapy, experimental treatment was applied on chronic knee pain for 4 weeks, 3 times/week, 15 min/time. Data were collected from half March 2005 to May 2005. Data were analyzed using SPSS PC+ 12 version. Descriptive statistics was used for analysis of general characteristics in sample, and paired t-test was used to analysis the effect of electrical muscle stimulation therapy. Results: After receiving the electrical muscle stimulation therapy chronic knee pain was significantly decreased (t=-29.163, P=.000 in S-F MPQ; t=-37.005, P=.000 in AIMS). Conclusion: Electrical muscle stimulation therapy can be a better effective primary nursing intervention on chronic knee pain for aged in community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.419 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue동서간호학연구지Same topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207