Integrative medicine for subacute stroke rehabilitation: a study protocol for a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many patients with stroke receive integrative medicine in China, which includes the basic treatment of Western medicine and routine rehabilitation, in conjunction with acupuncture and Chinese medicine. The question of whether integrative medicine is efficacious for stroke rehabilitation is still controversial and very little research currently exists on the integrated approach for this condition. Consequently, we will conduct a multicentre, randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of integrative medicine on stroke rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 360 participants recruited from three large Chinese medical hospitals in Zhejiang Province will be randomly divided into the integrative medicine rehabilitation (IMR) group and the conventional rehabilitation (CR) group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the IMR group will receive acupuncture and Chinese herbs in addition to basic Western medicine and rehabilitation treatment. The CR group will not receive acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine. The assessment data will be collected at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks postrandomisation, and then at 12 weeks' follow-up. The primary outcome is measured by the Modified Barthel Index. The secondary outcomes are the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Fugl-Meyer Assessment, the mini-mental state examination and Montreal Cognitive, Hamilton's Depression Scale and Self-Rating Depression Scale, and the incidence of adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from ethics committees of three hospitals. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international congresses. The results will also be disseminated to patients by telephone, during follow-up calls inquiring on patient's post-study health status. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Chinese Clinical Trial Register: ChiCTR-TRC-12001972, http://www.chictr.org/en/proj/show.aspx?proj=2561.
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 | 0.053 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.011 |
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".