Two Styles of Acupuncture for Treating Painful Diabetic Neuropathy – a Pilot Randomised Control 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
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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