A review of controlled trials of acupuncture for women's reproductive health care
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
BACKGROUND: Acupuncture as a therapy, and acupressure as self-treatment, are increasingly widely used for gynaecological conditions, and this study aims to review the scientific literature on their effectiveness. METHOD: A systematic review of controlled trials of acupuncture or acupressure for gynaecological conditions, published in a European language. SYNTHESIS: No studies in mastalgia, menorrhagia, pelvic pain, premenstrual syndrome or vulvodynia met the inclusion criteria. Four studies, two of which were patient-blinded, of acupuncture or acupressure for dysmenorrhoea suggest that it may have an effect. Three studies of acupuncture given at various stages of infertility treatment are promising, but none was patient-blind. Two studies of acupuncture for menopausal symptoms showed no effect during the treatment period when compared with sham acupuncture, and a third study showed no effect on hypertension in postmenopausal women, though some improvement in symptoms was noted. CONCLUSION: In view of the small number of studies and their variable quality, doubt remains about the effectiveness of acupuncture for gynaecological conditions. Acupuncture and acupressure appear promising for dysmenorrhoea, and acupuncture for infertility, and further studies are justified.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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