Efficiency of the application of miorelaxants in lower cross myofascial syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the drug Tolperisone (Calmirex) in patients with inferior cross syndrome against the background of standard therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study involved male and female patients aged 25-55 years with inferior cross syndrome. The main research method was clinical, which was supplemented by biomechanical examination and the use of scales and questionnaires (VAS, Oswestry, McGill). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of the use of muscle relaxants in the treatment of the lower cross syndrome has been studied and proved with the identification of the most reliable and effective methods for correcting this pathology. The effectiveness of the use of muscle relaxants in the treatment of lower cross syndrome was studied, with the identification of the most reliable and effective methods for correcting this pathology. The presented clinical study of biomechanical and statodynamic disorders of the musculoskeletal system in myofascial pain syndromes, taking into account the peculiarities of the lesion of the sanogenetic and pathogenetic region, will be useful in prescribing personalized treatment not only for neurologists, but also for primary care physicians, chiropractors, osteopaths, rheumatologists and rehabilitologists.
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) | 0.001 | 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".