Osteogenetic factor in the forming of complex spondilogenic vertebralbasilar and vertebralcardial disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
116 patients with clinical manifestations of thoraco-cervical osteochondrosis with reflectory vertebral-basilar and vertebral-cardial disorders have been examined. 64 patients (basic group) along with traditional therapy of thoraco-cervical osteochondrosis underwent a course of intraosteal blockades, while 52 patients (comparison group) received traditional therapy with a course of paravertebral blockades. Effectiveness of treatment was assessed by the dynamics of pain syndrome parameters using Visual-Analog Pain Scale, Russian version of McGill pain questionnaire, “body scheme” questionnaire, as well as by hemodynamics parameters, cardiac rhythm variability, and examination of cognitive functions. More significant effect of intraosteal blockades in the complex treatment of the patients under study, compared to paravertebral blockades, was revealed. Clinical manifestations of both vertebral-basilar and vertebral-cardial spondilogenic disorders significantly regressed after intraosteal blockades. Osteogenetic factor can be considered as a universal mechanism of the forming of complex spondilogenic vertebal-basilar and vertebral-cardial disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 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".