MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386739711 · doi:10.55041/ijsrem25698

EFFECT OF SCIATIC NERVE MOBILIZATION ON LOWER LIMB FUNCTION AMONG SUBJECTS WITH DIABETIC NEUROPATHY

2023· article· en· W4386739711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T.s.s.Priya Meghana

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSensationPeripheral neuropathySciatic nerveDiabetes mellitusDiabetic neuropathyEntrapment NeuropathySurgeryVisual analogue scalePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyAnesthesiaCarpal tunnel syndromePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most frequent consequence that diabetes people experience is diabetic neuropathy. The form of diabetic neuropathy that occurs most frequently is distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, involving sensory, motor and autonomic fibers. Sensory disturbance is most common and may be seen as hypersensitivity to touch, burning sensation, tingling and pricking pain sensation. Techniques for nerve mobility can be utilized to lessen discomfort and enhance sensibility in the area that the nerve feeds. The goal of this study is to evaluate the impact of sciatic nerve mobilization on the performance of the lower limbs and the degree of peripheral neuropathy in diabetic neuropathy patients. A Quasi-experimental design was carried out in Saveetha physiotherapy OPD, Saveetha medical college and hospital, Chennai involving 30 patients recruited using convenient sampling procedure. The data were tabulated and analyzed using Graph pad prism. This study focuses on the Influence of sciatic nerve mobilization on lower limb mobilization among subjects with diabetic neuropathy. Key Words: Sciatic nerve mobilization, Diabetic neuropathy, Lower limb function, Dynamic gait index scale, Toronto clinical neuropathy score.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENTSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207