CORRENTE INTERFERENCIAL COMO FORMA DE TRATAMENTO EM PACIENTES COM DOR LOMBAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O tratamento de indivíduos com dor lombar crônica tem sido um desafio, e embora as modalidades eletroterapêuticas sejam frequentemente usadas, a literatura não apresenta consenso.Objetivo: avaliar os efeitos da corrente interferencial bipolar em indivíduos com dor lombar crônica.Participaram 10 voluntários, com dor lombar crônica, durante 3 semanas (1ª-controle (eram controles deles mesmos); 2ª-tratamento; 3ª-seguimento).O tratamento foi realizado com a corrente interferencial, bipolar, 4kHz, 100Hz AMF, 20 minutos, por cinco dias consecutivos.Os parâmetros avaliativos foram: escala visual analógica de dor (EVAD), algômetro de pressão, Índice de Incapacidade de Oswestry Modificado e questionário de McGill.Houve diferença apenas para a EVAD diária (p<0,0001).Conclui-se que a corrente interferencial não se mostrou eficaz na redução da dor lombar crônica, em relação à melhora funcional e quadro álgico, contudo, apresentou redução do quadro álgico do pré para o pós-tratamento, mostrando-se como uma opção viável para associação com outras técnicas terapêuticas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".