Osteopathic Correction in Complex Therapy of Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal of research - the study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and scientifi c basis for the use of osteopathic correction in the treatment of cognitive impairment.Materials and methods. Two groups of patients participated in the study: Group 1 (focus group) included 22 patients with a syndrome of mild cognitive impairment who received medication and osteopathic correction; Group 2 (control group) consisted of 22 patients who received medication only. The groups were comparable in age, sex, and severity of cognitive impairment. All patients observed before and after treatment underwent complex osteopathic and neuropsychological examinations.Results. The study found that the inclusion of osteopathic correction in the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment has a positive effect on the dynamics of a number of neuropsychological tests. In particular, there is a statistically signifi cant increase in the indicators based on the results of the Montreal Cognitive Evaluation Scale; there is a decrease in the overall anxiety level based on the results of the Hospital Alarm and Depression Scale. Moreover, the focus group shows a statistically signifi cant decrease in the severity of somatic dysfunction in the head and neck area, both structural and visceral components, which was not observed in the control group.Conclusion. The results from the study suggest recommending the inclusion of osteopathic correction in the complex therapy for patients with mild cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".