Two Styles of Acupuncture for Treating Painful Diabetic Neuropathy – a Pilot Randomised Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a pilot study, we evaluated the clinical and mechanistic effects of two styles of acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Japanese acupuncture, for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. Out of seven patients enrolled, three received Traditional Chinese acupuncture while four received Japanese style acupuncture. Treatments were delivered once a week for 10 weeks. Acupuncturists were permitted to select the needle interventions. Substantial differences in diagnostic techniques, choice of acupuncture points, and needle manipulation were observed between TCM and Japanese acupuncturists. Clinically, patients allocated to Japanese acupuncture reported decreased neuropathy-associated pain according to the daily pain severity score, while the group allocated to the TCM acupuncture reported minimal effects. Both acupuncture styles, however, lowered pain according to the McGill Short Form Pain Score. The TCM style improved nerve sensation according to quantitative sensory testing while the Japanese style had a more equivocal effect. No evident changes were observed in glucose control or heart rate variability in either group.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".