EFICACIA DE LA MOVILIZACIÓN TEMPRANA EN PACIENTES DE UNIDADES DE CUIDADOS INTENSIVOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To analyze and systematize the efficacy of early mobilization in intensive care unit patients.Material and Method: This is a Systematic Review consisting of 10 full-text research articles describing the results of its application in the early mobilization of the hospitalized patient in intensive care units, as well as the benefits that this entails, the selected articles Were subjected to a critical reading, using the Grade evaluation to identify their degree of evidence.Sixty percent (06) of the investigations found correspond to systematic reviews, with Brazil being 20%, EE.UU, Canada, France and Australia with 10% each; And 40% (4) correspond to quantitative scientific articles from Colombia, France, Brazil and Switzerland.Results: 90% (9) of the total of articles reviewed (10), indicated that early mobilization is effective and has beneficial effects for the patient of intensive care units; feasible and had a significantly positive impact on the functional outcomes of patients; reduces associated complications resulting from prolonged bed rest and also decreases the length of hospital stay.Conclusion: it was evidenced that 90% of studies affirm that early mobilization is an effective, safe and beneficial therapy to reduce complications and stay of patients hospitalized in intensive care units.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".