BENEFÍCIOS DA OZONIOTERAPIA NO TRATAMENTO DE ÚLCERAS NOS PÉS EM PESSOAS COM DIABETES MELLITUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo:Identificar os benefícios da ozonioterapia no tratamento de úlceras nos pés de pessoas com diabetes mellitus. Métodos: Revisão de literatura realizada nas bases de dados CINAHL, CochraneLibrary, LILACS, PUBMED, SciELO, SCOPUS e Web of Science, no período de abril a maio de 2020. Em cada base de dados, os descritores controlados foram delimitados nos Descritores em Ciências da Saúde e Medical Subject Headings, definidas as palavras-chaves: Ozônio (Ozone) e Pé Diabético (Diabeticfoot), com auxílio do operador booleano AND. Resultados:Houve a seleção de 14 estudos primários. A maioria dos estudos possui nível II de evidência, publicados em inglês, em distintos periódicos, oriundos de diversas partes do mundo. Foram identificados 15 benefícios da ozonioterapia para o tratamento de úlceras nos pés, com predomínio de aumento do tecido de granulação e intensificação no progresso do reparo tecidual. Conclusão: O uso da ozonioterapia apresentou diversos benefícios no progresso do reparo tecidual de úlceras nos pés em pessoas com diabetes, aumentando o tecido de granulação, promovendo atividades antissépticas e bactericidas e prevenindo o estresse oxidativo.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".