MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621281149 · doi:10.22219/jk.v7i1.3918

Effect Foot Soak Using Warm Water Mixed with Salt and Lemongrass to Decrease Pressure in Hypertension Patients in the Podorejo Ngaliyan

2017· article· en· W2621281149 on OpenAlexaff
Priharyanti Wulandari

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Keperawatan · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSports and Physical Education Research
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressureMedicineAnimal scienceInternal medicineSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of hypertension in the region Podorejo RW 8 Ngalliyan in 2014 as many as 85 people, increase in 2015 as many as 110 people from stage I – III, the researchers are interested to doing therapy using warm water with a mixture of salt and lemon grass to lower blood pressure. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect between soaking feet using warm water with a mixture of salt and cymbopogon nardus l. rendle with reduction of blood pressure in patients with hypertension in region Podorejo RW 8 Ngaliyan. Quantitative research manifold quasi experiment with design Time Series Design Without Control. Sampling technique used Purposive Sampling counted 80 people. Data obtained by statistical test using Wilcoxon test. Based on Wilcoxon test showed Z = -8,127 (sistolik) Z = -5,587 (diastolik) and ρ value = 0,000 with α = 0,05. Where ρ value 0,000 < 0,05, so that H0 rejected Ha be accepted. There is any any effect of soaking feet using warm water with a mixture of salt and lemon grass toward reduction of blood pressure in patients with hypertension in region RW 8 Podorejo Ngaliyan. Nurses are expected to be used as a therapy to help people with hypertension to lower blood pressure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal KeperawatanSame topicSports and Physical Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207