MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400696276 · doi:10.7759/cureus.64615

The Power of Movement: A Comprehensive Case Study of Physiotherapeutic Approaches in Electrical Injury Rehabilitation

2024· article· en· W4400696276 on OpenAlexaff
Medhavi Vivek Joshi, Pallavi Bhakne, Chaitanya Kulkarni, Tushar Palekar, Pratik Phansopkar

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMovement (music)Physical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical injuries are common phenomena in developing countries, due to inadequate safety measures followed during day-to-day electrical repairs. Workplace injuries account for 20% of these. In some severe cases, electrical injuries lead to burns, indirect fracture dislocations, speech impairments, etc. Falls due to electrical injuries leading to secondary complications are very common and, even though not very severe, they do require immediate treatment and adequate rehabilitation. A 53-year-old male suffered a shoulder injury following an electrical shock. The patient also experienced irritation and speech disturbances. Examination revealed a reduced range of shoulder joints and tightness of muscles of the shoulder complex. Physiotherapy intervention included counseling for the patient and his family members, energy conservation methods for ease in daily activities, a rehabilitation protocol, and modified music therapy. Outcome measures used to assess the progression constituted the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Depression and Anxiety and Stress Scale. Rehabilitation with adjunct therapy is effective in the overall improvement of the patient's condition concerning their mental health as well as physical health by early strength training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207