Effects of five elements music combined with lamazir breathing on anxiety and pain, birth control and outcome of parturients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effects of five elements music and lamazir respiration on anxiety and pain, birth control and outcome of delivery. Methods A total of 200 first-parturients with full-term single birth in the hospital from March to September 2016 were selected as the subjects, and were divided into observation group and control group according to the random number table method, 100 cases of each group. In the control group, the routine birth test was performed, and the observation group began to train five lines of music with lamazir breathing at 28 weeks. Amsterdam preoperative anxiety and information scale, simplified McGill pain questionnaire scale and birth control scale were used to compare the maternal anxiety, pain, birth control and birth outcome of the two groups. Results The degree of anxiety and pain in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the duration of labor was shorter than that in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The blood loss of the observation group was lower than that of the control group, and the Apgar score of the newborn was higher than that of the control group, and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusions Five-line music combined with lamaze breathing can reduce anxiety and pain of first-time mothers, improve control of delivery, shorten delivery, reduce postpartum hemorrhage and reduce neonatal asphyxia.It is worthy of clinical promotion. Key words: Five elements of music; Lamaze breathing; Anxiety; Pain; Birth control
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".