Research on optimal Traditional Chinese Medicine treatment of knee ostarthritis with data mining algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, more and more patients suffering from knee OA (Ostarthritis) are treated with complementary and alternative medicine, such as herbal drugs, herbal patches, acupuncture and manipulation etc, as an effective therapy. However, traditional statistical methods data gathered from randomized controlled trials (RCT) which were considered as the golden standard for therapy effectiveness failed to confirm those therapies efficacy. Whether we can accurately predict these therapeutic effects on the basis of a prospective, five-center, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial by means of other innovative ways is the question. According to this question, our team adopted several commonly used data mining algorithms to study it, such as KNN (k-Nearest Neighbor algorithm), j48 (decision tree), ANN (Artificial Neural Network). By means of modeling analysis of the patients' Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) symptoms questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of OA (WOMAC) total score and SF-36 assessment to predict the therapeutic effect which a patient can achieve after adopting one of those TCM therapies. Then we comprehensively analysed the effect and characteristic of every therapy schedule.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".