Utilidad del campo magnético en la cervicobraquialgia crónica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation consists with a wide therapeutic arsenal to treat chronic affections, using natural and artificial physical agents essentially. The treatment is almost always conservative and it can be used the local application of the electric currents and the magnetic field as physiotherapy measures. Keeping in mind the biological effects of the therapy with regional magnetic field, their utility was investigated in the chronic cervical pain that represents one in the most frequent ways in inability that go to our consultations. Objectives: to evaluate the effectiveness of the regional magnetic field in the chronic cervical pain with regard to the application of interferential current. Material and methods: the prospective and descriptive study was carried out in the Service of Rehabilitation of the Central Clinic "Cira García", in the period understood among December 2008 to December 2009. The universe was compound for 60 patients and the sample for two groups of patient (30 each one) that completed the insertion requirements for the entity. They were applied the visual analogical scale and McGill's test for the evaluation of the pain and the scale of inability of Lee and Stanford in the initial and concluded consultation the treatment. A group carried out treatment with interferential current, and another group received treatment with regional magneto therapy. The information was processed by statistical package SPSS version 11.5. Results and conclusions: the evolution of the pain and the inability among the groups didn't have significant differences, or p less than 0.05; both therapies are effective in the boarding of this entity. The interferential current was more effective for the relief of the pain when it was compared with the regional magnetotherapy. Scarce adverse reactions were only presented with the interferential current.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".