MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806194826 · doi:10.5747/cv.2018.v10.n1.v224

EFEITO DO TRATAMENTO HIDROTERÁPICO NA DOR LOMBAR E QUALIDADE DE VIDA DE GESTANTE: ESTUDO DE CASO

2018· article· pt· W2806194826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fernanda Laudilina de Barros, Francini Rodrigues de Souza, Mariana Duro Couto, Laryssa Lima Bezerra, Maria Beatriz dos Santos Silva, Francis Lopes Pacagnelli, Gabriela Andrade Piemonte

Bibliographic record

VenueColloquium Vitae · 2018
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHydrotherapyMcGill Pain QuestionnairePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Provocation testVisual analogue scaleBalneotherapyGynecologyAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESUMOEste estudo teve como objetivo evidenciar o efeito da hidroterapia no tratamento da lombalgia no período gestacional, assim como a qualidade de vida e limitações funcionais da gestante.O estudo foi realizado em uma clinica escola de Fisioterapia na cidade de Presidente Prudente-SP.Uma gestante com idade de 20 anos com queixa de dor lombar foi submetida a um protocolo de tratamento aquático.O tratamento foi realizado duas vezes por semana, durante 60 min, divididos em alongamento, fortalecimento e relaxamento.A gestante foi avaliada inicialmente e reavaliada na 9º sessão, utilizando os questionários sócios demográficos, qualidade de vida SF-36, McGill, escala visual analógica e teste de provocação da dor.Após a realização do protocolo observou-se redução dos níveis de dor e melhora da qualidade de vida.A hidroterapia foi um método eficaz no tratamento conservador para a lombalgia em gestante.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueColloquium VitaeSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207