MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147500895 · doi:10.52336/acm.2020.9.6.01

Practical application of kinesiotaping in the case of a cesarean section scar

2020· article· en· W3147500895 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Cosmetology and Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Contouring and Surgery
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScarsMedicineHypertrophic scarsLymphatic systemScar tissueLymphatic tissuesCaesarean sectionMicrocirculationMuscle toneSurgeryPathologyRadiologyPregnancyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A scar is a skin change resulting from the healing process following, among others, a mechanical injury. Its reconstruction is an important stage that determines the final appearance of the scar and the functionality of the adjacent tissues. The aim of the study is to present the possibility of kinesiotaping in reducing the undesirable effects of a postoperative scar after a C-section on tissue mobility and disturbance of muscle tone. Kinesiotaping supports the spontaneous healing of the scar by reducing pain sensations, activating the lymphatic system, microcirculation, improving the functioning of the surrounding muscles and joints and normalizing muscle tension. Taping the scars is carried out using various techniques, where the direction of sticking or the extent to which the tape is stretched is important. The following techniques are useful in the treatment of caesarean scars: the Z technique, the step technique or the isolated fascial technique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it