Etude comparative d'une prise en charge par technique isocinétique versus kinesithérapie classique chez le lombalgique chronique (résultats préliminaires)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectif : Il est de determiner si l'utilisation d'un systeme dynamometrique isocinetique du tronc constitue un facteur de desinhibition motrice chez le sujet lombalgique chronique par rapport aux techniques classiques de kinesitherapie du rachis. Population : le recrutement est effectue a partir de sujets presentant une lombalgie chronique suivis en consultation dans une unite de Rhumatologie et dans une unite de Medecine Physique et de Readaptation. Methodologie : Il s'agit d'une etude prospective, randomisee avec groupe contrôle. Les criteres d'evaluation sont la douleur (EVA), la mobilite rachidienne (indice de Schober, distance doigt-sol), l'extensibilite et la force musculaire (test de Biering-Sorensen et de Shirado-Ito) et l'etat fonctionnel (echelle de Quebec). Resultats : ils montrent que la prise en charge reeducative, quel qu'en soit son type, entraine une amelioration significative de la mobilite articulaire, de l'extensibilite, de la force musculaire et de la douleur. Il n'y a pas de superiorité d'une technique par rapport a l'autre. En revanche, chacune des techniques apporte certaines ameliorations specifiques. Discussion : plusieurs limites methodologiques justifient des reserves vis a vis de ces resultats.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".