Efficacy and Safety of Sanfu Herbal Patch at Acupoints for Persistent Allergic Rhinitis: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The Sanfu herbal patch (SHP) has been widely used to treat allergic rhinitis (AR) in China. SHP has been reported to be effective for managing the symptoms of AR, but the evidence suffers from methodological limitations. Therefore, we designed a three-armed, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SHP for persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR). Methods. The trial consists of 5 treatment sessions along with a one-year follow-up. This process is then repeated in the second and third years. Eligible participants diagnosed with PAR were randomized at a ratio of 2 : 2 : 1 into one of three groups: (a) SHP group; (b) placebo group; or (c) waiting-list group. The waiting-list group will receive no treatment in the first year but will receive SHP in the following two years. The primary outcome, total nasal symptoms score, is self-assessed at the beginning of each treatment session and during each annual follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, allergic rhinitis attacks, and relief medications. The trial will be stopped if early termination criteria are met during the interim analysis. Ethics. This protocol has been approved by site ethics committee (number B2014-014-01) and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02192645.
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 | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.013 |
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".