Conservative treatment evaluation in patients with II-III Stage coxarthrosis using different scales and tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of complex conservative treatment of patients with II-III Stage coxarthrosis using different scales and tests. Materials and Methods. 66 patients with II-III Stage coxarthrosis examined. VAS, Lequesne Algofunctional Index, McGill Questionnaire and WOMAC used in the study. The complex of conservative treatment includes the prescription of chondroprotectors, vascular and metabolism-improving preparations, NSAIDs of short course, exposure to ultrasound and laser, exercise therapy with the techniques of gravitational loading and post-isometric relaxation, as well as massage with ischemia-caused compression of trigger points. Results. The study demonstrated that the complex treatment of patients with coxarthrosis decreased pain intensity and changed it emotively, but didn’t lead to significant joint function improvement. Conclusion. The comprehensiveness and continuity of restorative treatment should be observed at all the stages of rehabilitation from the out-patient clinic to rehabilitation department and sanatorium in order to achieve a stable positive effect.
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) | 0.001 | 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".