Achados Clínicos pós-Covid-19: Um relato de caso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: O objetivo deste artigo foi analisar o perfil clínico de dois pacientes, três meses após contrair o Covid-19. Métodos: Refere-se a um estudo descritivo do tipo série de casos, contendo duas amostras. As ferramentas utilizadas para traçar este perfil clínico foram espirometria e dinamometria, além de questionários para avaliação da qualidade de vida, dispneia, funcionalidade pós-Covid-19, percepção do efeito global, função objetiva, falhas cognitivas, escala visual numérica, questionário de dor McGill, escala de catastrofização da dor e a escala visual numérica, correlacionando-os com os achados encontrados na literatura. Resultados: Como resultado, observa-se por unanimidade as variáveis dor e deficiência cognitiva como sequelas da doença. Conclusão: Conclui-se que as alterações nos pacientes que tiveram infecção anterior por Covid-19, são importantes e consideráveis nos resultados da espirometria, fraqueza muscular, alteração na qualidade de vida e déficit na função objetiva. Assim como, pacientes com dor no pós Covid-19 apresentam níveis significativos de ansiedade e cinesiofobia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".