BENEFITS OF OZONE THERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF FOOT ULCERS IN PEOPLE WITH DIABETES MELLITUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the benefits of ozone therapy in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus. Method: Literature review carried out in the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, LILACS, PUBMED, SciELO, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases in the period between April and May 2020. In each database, the controlled descriptors were delimited in the Science Descriptors of Health and Medical Subject Headings, keywords defined: Ozone (Ozone), Diabetic Foot (Diabetic foot), with the help of the Boolean operator AND. Results: 14 primary studies were selected. Most studies have level II evidence, published in English, in different journals, from different parts of the world. 15 benefits of ozone therapy for the treatment of foot ulcers were identified, with a predominance of increased granulation tissue and intensification in the progress of tissue repair. Conclusion: The use of ozone therapy has shown several benefits in the progress in tissue repair of foot ulcers in people with diabetes, increased granulation tissue, promoted antiseptic and bactericidal activities, preventing oxidative stress.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".