Acupuncture in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients (n = 60) with chronic low back pain were recruited and randomly allocated to either Acupuncture therapy or Placebo transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) groups. Patients were treated weekly for 6 weeks, and blinded assessments were carried out pre- and post-treatment using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain, the Short-form 36 quality-of-life questionnaire, and a simple range of motion measurement. A total of 46 patients completed the trial and were followed up at 6 months. RESULTS: Analysis of results using t tests showed that in both groups there were significant pre-post improvements for all scores, except for MPQ scores in the Placebo-TENS group. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups for any of the outcome measures at the end of treatment. Results from the 6-month follow-up would suggest that the response was better in the acupuncture group. DISCUSSION: Further research is necessary to fully assess the efficacy of this treatment in combating chronic low back pain using larger sample sizes or alternative control groups.
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.
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 | 0.061 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it