A random, case‐control study on the efficacy and safety of <scp>W</scp>eishi <scp>B</scp>itong <scp>X</scp>ifang fumigation for mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy and safety of Weishi Bitong Xifang fumigation for treating patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: A total of 100 KOA patients were randomly assigned to receive Weishi Bitong Xifang fumigation and washing (fumigation group, n = 50) or unctions of votalin emulgel (Voltaren emulgel group, n = 50) by means of a computer-generated random-number table. All the patients received two courses of therapy (2 weeks per course). Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to assess the curative effect. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale and WOMAC scores were significantly improved in both groups after treatment. However, VAS, stiffness and functional scores in the fumigation group were significantly lower than those in the Voltaren emulgel group after 4 weeks of treatment. In addition, the occurrence rate of adverse effects in the fumigation group was also lower than that of the Voltaren emulgel group. CONCLUSION: Weishi Bitong Xifang fumigation is an effective and safe method for treating KOA patients and should be widely applied in clinics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".