Fisioterapia na preparacao para o parto nao considera a preparacao da parte osteoraticular
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The dilation period of labor requires mobility of the sacroiliac joints, which may not be fully mobile or adapted in all women. Physical therapy, on the other hand, has tools to release these joints. Aims: To verify whether the literature contemplates both the preparation service for the osteoarticular portion of the birth canal and for the soft tissues. Methods: A review was carried out, without language restrictions, in the LILACS, PEDro, Pubmed and SciELO databases. Results: A total of 49 articles were selected according to whether they contain physical therapy techniques in preparation for childbirth or not. Most studies addressed physical therapy for pelvic floor muscles and treatments for low back pain and urinary incontinence. There have been no studies dealing with the preparation of the bone part for childbirth. Conclusion: Pelvic physiotherapy in preparation for childbirth minimizes the occurrence of pelvic floor disorders, but the techniques are restricted to the treatment of lumbar symptoms and soft tissue preparation only, without taking into account the preparation of the bony birth canal, which it is nonsense since there is physical therapy to improve the mobility of the sacroiliac joints, which are fundamental in optimizing the evolution of the entire delivery treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".