MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559400438 · doi:10.25011/cim.v39i6.27508

The Potential Beneficial Effects Of Hand And Foot Bathing On Vital Signs In Women With Caesarean Section

2016· article· en· W2559400438 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elif Cal, Büşra Çakiroğlu, Ayse Nur Kurt, Siti Sugih Hartiningsih, Suryani Suryani, Şenol Dane

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTherapeutic Uses of Natural Elements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathingCaesarean sectionMedicineFoot (prosody)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationObstetricsPregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Hand-foot bathing therapy is a simple technique to induce sensations of comfort and relaxation. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of hand and foot bathing therapy on vital signs in women following caesarean section. METHODS: Participants were sixty women with caesarean section. They divided to two groups: (1) study group (n=30, median age=26.67 years, SD=2.04); and, (2) control group (n=30, median age=27.75 years, SD=1.09). Vital signs were measured for 5 minutes before and for 30 minutes after the hand and foot bathing therapy. RESULTS: Pain score, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart and breath rates decreased after hand and foot bathing therapy. Differences between before and after therapy were statistically significantly. CONSCLUSIONS: These results indicate that hand and foot bathing therapy might be helpful to restore the vital signs in post-operative patients by decreasing anxiety and psychological stress.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicTherapeutic Uses of Natural ElementsFrench-language works237,207