Efficacy of peloidotherapy alone or in combination with hydrotherapy in osteoartritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of combined hydrotherapy and peloidotherapy compared to peloidotherapy alone in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. In this observational retrospective study 873 patients records who were undertaken balneolojical treatment at the Medical Ecology and Hydroclimatology Department of Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, were analysed. The diagnoses were 175 generalized OA, 338 knee OA, 44 hip OA, 138 hand OA, 59 cervical OA, 67 lomber OA and 11 foot ankle OA. In total 606 patients given ten treatment sessions of hydrotherapy (tap water, 37 °C) and peloidotherapy(42-43 °C) for 2 weeks, 5 days per week. In total 226 patients also given same treatment protocol except hydrotherapy. Evaluations were done before and after treatment by pain intensity (visual analog scale, VAS), patient's general evaluation (VAS), physician's general evaluation (VAS), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Lequesne's Functional Index (LFI), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index(WOMAC), Waddell Index (WI), Cervical Disability and Pain Scale (CDPS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire(SDQ). At the end of the combination therapy significant improvements have been found in all assessments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".