Effect of Low Level Laser Versus Bee Venom Phonophoresis on Shoulder Dysfunction in Postmastectomy Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mastectomy, in which breast tissue is surgi-cally removed, can cause physical, mental, and social issues for patients Some of the major side effects included infection, pain, phantom breast disorder, seroma, hemorrhage lymphede-ma, as well as frozen shoulder. Aim of Study: The goal of the study is to compare the thera-peutic impact between low level laser versus bee venom phono-phoresis on shoulder dysfunction in postmastectomy patients. Patients and Methods: Fifty-two patients took part in this study. They were aged from 30 to 55 years. They were selected from Alexandria Police Hospital and randomized into 2 groups equal in number. Group (A): 26 patients were given 20min low level laser therapy 3 sessions per week as well as selected physiotherapy program according to Canadian Cancer Society Guidelines for 6 weeks. While, Group (B): 26 patients were given 10min bee venom phonophoresis 3 sessions per week as well as selected physiotherapy program according to Canadian Cancer Society Guidelines for 6 weeks. Results: This study demonstrated that there was a statisti-cally highly significant enhancement in Visual analogue scale and shoulder Range of motion of group (A) when compared with its corresponding value in group (B). Conclusion: The use of low-level laser therapy was more beneficial than bee venom phonophoresis in improvement shoulder pain as well as ROM in postmastectomy patients
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".