THE SUBSTANTIATION OF COMPLEX TREATMENT FOR MYOFASCIAL SYNDROME OF CERVICOBRACHIAL LOCALIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH SOMATOFORM AUTONOMIC DYSFUNCTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To study the efficiency and give reasons for the treatment of cervicobrachial myofascial syndrome (MFS) in patients with somatoform and autonomic dysfunctions using a complex of methods, including correction of postural muscle imbalance, reflexology and kinesiotaping. Material and methods. 49 patients took part in the study, they were divided into 2 comparison groups, matched by sex and age. Group I - the control group consisted of 24 patients who underwent a course of treatment according to the protocols and treatment standards in the Republic of Belarus. Group II - the experimental group included 25 patients who in addition to the standard course of treatment, received a complex of methods, including correction of postural muscle imbalance, reflexology and kinesiotaping. All patients underwent a clinical and neurological examination, the level of their anxiety and depressive symptoms was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - HADS (Zigmond A.S., Snaith R.P., 1983), (Russian version of Andryushchenko A.V., Drobizhev M.Yu., Dobrovolsky A.V., 2003), for the diagnosis of autonomic dysfunction the autonomic test by A.M. Wayne was used. Pain assessment was carried out using McGill’s multidimensional pain questionnaire modified by V.V. Kuzmenko. Results. A statistically significant positive effect of this treatment complex on the process of the MFS patients recovery was revealed. Conclusions. The proposed complex is gentle, non-stressful, effective and safe, which exerts a positive influence on improving the quality of medical care.
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".