Title: Immediate Effect Of Physiotherapy Intervention In Subjects With Primary Dysmenorrhea – A Quasi-experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective- Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) is common among females, it is associate with menstrual pain with absence of an identifiable cause. Physiotherapy is beneficial to improve symptoms in females but there is limited evidence based on immediate effect of Physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of PD. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the immediate effect of physiotherapy interventions in subjects with PD. Methods- Sample size for this study was n=26 as it was based on previous studies. A single group experimental study was conducted among 26 healthy females with age between 18-25 years. The students were screened on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. In order to assess the menstrual pain quality short- form McGill pain questionnaire was used. Results- Results revealed significantly reduction in the menstrual pain and symptoms after the intervention with p-value of 0.00 and 95% of confidence interval. The physiotherapy intervention was beneficial in reduction of pain and symptoms of primary dysmenorrhea among physiotherapy students. Conclusion- The results showed that physiotherapy intervention has highly significant for reducing the pain intensity and the symptoms in subjects with primary dysmenorrhea.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".