Manejo rehabilitador integral del dolor pélv ico crónico. Estudio preliminar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduccion : el dolor pelvico cronico se origina en cualquier lugar comprendido entre el diafragma y las rodillas, tiene una duracion superior a seis meses, no resuelto por tratamientos previos, sin relacion con el dano tisular, impotencia funcional, signos vegetativos de depresion, dinamica familiar alterada. Es una condicion compleja, de dificil manejo, con diagnostico poco evidenciado y tratado sintomaticamente con conductas conservadoras y/o quirurgicas. Metodos : se realizo un estudio de intervencion, cuasi experimental, con el uso de agentes fisicos (campo magnetico local electroterapia de baja frecuencia (TENS analgesica) para el alivio y/o la curacion del dolor pelvico cronico. Se realizo la evaluacion por las referencias subjetivas delos pacientes, la evaluacion funcional medica y fisioterapeutica al finalizar el tratamiento. Fueron aplicados los instrumentos de medicion del dolor: test Short Form McGill, test de vulnerabilidad psicosocial, test de modos de afrontamiento de Folkman y Lazaruz. Resultados : el 19,65 % de los pacientes atendido s en la consulta especializada de suelo pelvico porta dolor pelvico cronico, 51 mujeres (74 %), 18 hombres (26 %), edad promedio para ambos sexos de 47,3 ± 4,5 anos. De ellos: 11 pacientes curados (15,9 %), 25 mejor (36 %) y 18 en tratamiento (26 %). Siete pacientes recibieron test Short Form Mcgill para medir dolor, test de vulnerabilidad psicosocial y de modos de afrontamiento de Folkman y Lazaruz. Conclusiones : todos los pacientes tratados con agentes fisico terapeuticos evolucionaron hacia la mejoria o la eliminacion de los sintomas, en ningun caso se demostro empeoramiento. La aplicacion de test de dolor constituye una herramienta util en la evaluacion de los pacientes. Normal 0 21 false false false ES X-NONE AR-SA /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:Tabla normal; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".