Uma proposta de telerreabilitação de mulheres portadoras de disfunção musculoesquelética crônica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
de consentimento livre e esclarecido, foi realizado um ensaio clnico controlado com mulheres na faixa etria de 55 a 85 anos de idade, com diagnstico mdico de disfuno musculoesqueltica (osteoartrose de joelho), alocadas em 2 grupos (randomizao estratificada): grupo telerreabilitao (n=11) e grupo reabilitao presencial (n=11).Os grupos foram avaliados, presencialmente, por meio de questionrio WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), Escala de Autoeficcia para Controle da Dor Crnica (AEDC), escala de dor NRS (Numeric Rating Scale), teste funcional TUG (Timed Up and Go) e avaliao de fora muscular do quadrceps femoral e isquiotibiais por dinamometria isomtrica.Todas as participantes foram submetidas a um protocolo de interveno composto por exerccios de fortalecimento muscular, duas sesses por semana, durante o perodo de 12 semanas, e reavaliadas ao final de 24 sesses, sendo que o grupo telerreabilitao foi monitorado de maneira sncrona, via plataforma Google Meet, e o grupo reabilitao presencial, na clnica de fisioterapia da FIB (Faculdades Integradas de Bauru).Os resultados analisados estatisticamente (test t) para comparao de cada varivel dependente entre os dois grupos de tratamento, com nvel de significncia estabelecido em p<0,05, e anlise de varincia de dois critrios (ANOVA 2), sugeriram que as duas modalidades teraputicas, telerreabilitao e reabilitao presencial, resultaram em melhoras clnicas significativas, sendo comparveis desde a linha de base at trs meses de tratamento.Concluiu-se que a telerreabilitao, quando comparada com a reabilitao presencial, como proposta de tratamento de disfuno musculoesqueltica crnica, demonstrou no haver diferena entre os dois grupos,
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 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".