MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066693791

Influência de diferentes estratégias de estabilização lombopélvica e de programas de exercícios de controlo motor no Active Straight Leg Raise

2014· dissertation· pt· W7066693791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStraight leg raiseManual therapyTransversus abdominis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introdução: O Active Straight Leg Raise (ASLR) tem sido sugerido como um indicador clínico da estabilidade lombopélvica. Estratégias passivas e ativas podem contribuir para aumentar esta estabilidade, assim como programas de exercício baseados nas mesmas estratégias ativas. Objetivos: Comparar os efeitos imediatos da compressão pélvica manual (CP), do drawing-in (DI) e do bracing abdominal (BA) durante o ASLR em indivíduos com e sem dor lombopélvica crónica e inespecífica, e avaliar o efeito prolongado das manobras de estabilização ativas através dos programas de exercícios de controlo motor, Pilates e McGill. Métodos: Estudo transversal, com uma amostra de 111 voluntários, 52 sem dor lombopélvica (NLPPG) e 59 com dor lombopélvica (LPPG), e estudo experimental, formado pelo LPPG dividido em 19 no grupo controlo (GC), 20 no grupo pilates (GP) e 20 no grupo mcgill (GMg). Foi avaliado o ASLR padrão, o ASLR com CP, o ASLR com DI e ASLR com BA. Os participantes foram avaliados antes e após as 8 semanas de implementação dos programas exercícios de McGill e Richardson, apenas aos respetivos grupos. Resultados: O LPPG apresentou significativamente maior score no ASLR comparativamente ao NLPPG (z=-9,361; p<0,001). Apesar do BA ter apresentado scores inferiores às restantes estratégias (p<0,001), todas elas foram capazes de diminuir o score do ASLR (p<0,001). Após a aplicação dos programas de exercícios, verificou-se que o GP (p<0,001) e o GMg (p<0,001) apresentaram scores significativamente menores no ASLR, relativamente ao GC. No GP e no GMg verificou-se uma diminuição do score do ASLR (Z=-4,028; p<0,001; Z=-4,179; p<0,001, respetivamente). Além disso, GMg apresentou uma tendência para apresentar menores scores do ASLR comparativamente ao GP. Conclusão: Qualquer uma destas manobras de estabilização quando adicionada ao ASLR pode aumentar a estabilidade lombopélvica, especialmente o BA. Os exercícios de Pilates e de McGill permitiram melhorar os scores do ASLR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207