Establishing Expert-Based Recommendations for the Conservative Management of Pregnancy-Related Diastasis Rectus Abdominis: A Delphi Consensus Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Pregnancy-related diastasis rectus abdominis (DRA) is a prevalent condition. Consequences of a widened linea alba ultimately remain unknown. Current evidence on conservative management is conflicting, creating debate among practitioners. This study aims at developing a set of expert consensus-based recommendations for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Methods: Selected Canadian women's health physiotherapists were invited to participate in a 3-phase Delphi consensus study. Phase I comprised 82 items divided into 6 domains, and to determine agreement, each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as agreement greater than 80%. In phase II, items receiving consensus were ranked and collapsed and summary descriptions were proposed. In phase III, final consensus was determined. Results: A total of 21 of the 28 (75%) invited experts participated. Phase I generated 38 consensus statements. Phase II translated into 30 consensus statements as well as modifications to proposed summary statements for each data category. Remaining items did not reach consensus. Consensus for 28 expert-based recommendations was achieved in phase III. Conclusions: This study generated 28 expert-based recommendations achieved through a 3-phase consensus process for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Nationally recognized Canadian expert physiotherapists in women's health agree that the impairments and dysfunctions related to DRA are multidimensional and emphasize the need for a global and tailored care approach. Clinical Relevance: This is the first study to establish consensus across key stakeholders to assist in bridging the current evidence-practice gap regarding pregnancy-related DRA. Our findings point to matters that require further study. Level of Evidence: 5 (expert opinion). This article has a Video Abstract available at https://links.lww.com/JWHPT/A24.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it