A relação entre a força de pega da mão e a força da coifa dos rotadores: uma revisão da literatura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A força de pega da mão (FPM) na reabilitação da coifa dos rotadores é uma técnica ainda pouco utilizada mas poderá permitir um maior restabelecimento muscular. Objetivo: Verificar a relação entre a FPM e a de força da coifa dos rotadores (CR). Metodologia: Para formular o tema de investigação, foi utilizada a escala NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) modificada para avaliar a qualidade metodologia dos estudos. Foi realizada uma pesquisa computorizada nas bases de dados PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, usando a combinação de palavras-chave: («hand grip» OR «hand grip therapy» OR «hand grip strength») AND («rotator cuff increase»). Na base de dados PEDro foi utilizada a seguinte combinação de palavras-chave: («hand grip»/«hand grip therapy»/« hand grip strength») /(«rotator cuff increase»). Resultados: Foram incluídos 5 estudos num total de 127 participantes. Conclusão: A técnica de FPM parece ter uma influência positiva na reabilitação da coifa dos rotadores.
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 | 0.014 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".