Diz osteoartritli bireylerde farklı rehabilitasyon uygulamalarının etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amac: Diz osteoartritli (OA) bireylerde farkli rehabilitasyon uygulamalarinin, eklem hareket acikligi, kas kuvveti, agri, fiziksel fonksiyon ve yasam kalitesi uzerine etkilerini arastirmaktir. Yontem: Diz OA tanili 40-65 yas araliginda 30 hasta calismaya dahil edildi ve 3 gruba ayrildi. Elektroterapi uygulanan 1. gruba (N=10) 15 seans Transkutanoz Elektriksel Sinir Uyarimi (TENS), ultrason, sicak/soguk uygulama ve 15 gun boyunca ev egzersiz programi verildi. 2. gruba (N=10) uc doz Plateletten Zengin Plazma (PRP) uygulamasi sonrasi 15 gun boyunca ev egzersiz programi verildi. Kontrol grubuna (N=10) 15 gun boyunca sadece ev egzersiz programi verildi. Tedavinin baslangicinda ve sonunda tum bireylerin, eklem hareket acikligi (EHA) gonyometre ile, M. Quadriceps femoris kas kuvveti manuel kas testi ile, agri Vizuel Analog Skalasi ile, fiziksel fonksiyon The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) Skalasi ile ve yasam kalitesi Kisa Form-12 Mental (KF-12 MK) ve Fiziksel Komponent (KF-12 FK) ile degerlendirildi. Bulgular: Tum gruplarda aktivite anindaki agri ve WOMAC skorunda istatistiksel olarak anlamli fark bulundu (p<0,05). 1. ve 2. grupta EHA ve KF-12 MK; kontrol grubunda istirahat anindaki agri ve KF-12 FK skorunda istatistiksel olarak anlamli fark bulundu (p<0,05). Sonuc: Diz OA tedavisinde elektroterapi tedavisi ve PRP uygulamasina ek olarak ev egzersiz programinin, diz OA’da hastaligin semptomlarini gidermek ve yasam kalitesini artirmak icin kullanilabilecegi dusunulmektedir.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.014 |
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".