Impulsinės elektromagnetinio lauko terapijos poveikis šunims, sergantiems klubo sąnario osteoartritu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of the study: To investigate and research targeted pulsed electromagnetic field (tPEMF) therapy and its effectiveness on treating canines diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis and if it can provide a better quality of life. Materials and methods: This study was conducted at an anonymous mixed animal practice in Alberta, Canada, herein known as Clinic H, during October 2024-February 2025. Retrospective data collected from this study at Clinic H was used for the statistical analysis. All the dogs in the study had to meet certain inclusion parameters to be enrolled into the study: 7-15 years old, body weight ≤25 kg, diagnosed with osteoarthritis (COAST stage 2 or stage 3), currently on medications and/ or supplements to treat osteoarthritis. Thirty canines were enrolled in the study. The Google® random number generator was used to divide them into either the experimental or control group. The parameters that were analysed for both groups were the following: breed, age, castrated/ intact, gender, body weight, and BCS. Heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure MM colour, CRT, rectal temperature, and ROM were measured before and after treatment. There were two 15-minute treatments a day with the Assisi Loop 2.0® over 14 days. The experimental group received treatments with the Assisi Loop 2.0® on their hips. The control group had the Assisi Loop 2.0® placed on their hips, but it was not turned on. On day 1, 7, and 14 the CMPS-SF was used to assess the dog’s pain levels. Results and conclusions: The experimental group demonstrated a decrease in heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and rectal temperature after treatments with the Assisi Loop 2.0®. In the control group, the vital parameters increased after the placement of the inactivated Assisi Loop 2.0® on their hips. As p<0.05, all vital parameters apart from blood pressure systolic (p=0.671) and blood pressure diastolic (p=0.052) were statistically significant. Canines in the experimental group had decreased CMPS-SF scores compared to those in the control group, indicating that the after receiving treatments with the Assisi Loop 2.0® they experienced decreased levels of pain in comparison to the start of the treatment. The experimental group had decreased CMPS-SF scores at day 7 and 14, 6.47/24 and 5.2/24 respectively and increased ROM after treatments with the Assisi Loop 2.0®.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".