EFECTIVIDAD DE LA TERAPIA COMPRESIVA EN EL TIEMPO DE CICATRIZACIÓN DE LAS ULCERAS VARICOSAS EN PACIENTES CON INSUFICIENCIA VENOSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Systematize available evidence on the effectiveness of the use of compressive therapy against the healing time of varicose ulcers in patients with venous insufficiency.Material and methods: systematic review of international scientific articles, which have been acquired through database search, is carried out: pubmed, lilacs, Cochrane, Elsevier, Cochrane, Those that have been selected and analyzed, located through the pyramid of hierarchy of evidence.Of the 10 articles reviewed systematically 60% (n = 6/10) are systematic reviews, 20% (n = 2/10) are meta-analyzes, 10% (n = 1/10) are randomized controlled trials and 10% (n = 1/10) is an prospective randomized study.Also, According to the results obtained from the systematic review carried out in this study, they come from the countries of Brazil (20%), Germany (10%), Serbia (10%), United Kingdom (30%), Canada (10%) ), Switzerland (10%), Spain (10%).Results: the evidence found through the scientific articles reviewed indicate that 100% (n = 10/10) that the use of some type of compression therapy favors the healing of varicose ulcers. Conclusions:It is found that 10 of the 10 evidences analyzed agree that using compressive therapy reduces the healing time in patients with varicose ulcers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".