Acupuncture for acute stroke: study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has been widely used as a treatment for stroke in China for more than 3,000 years. However, previous research has not yet shown that acupuncture is effective as a stroke treatment. We report a protocol for a multicenter, randomized, controlled, and outcome assessor-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture on acute ischemic stroke. METHODS/DESIGN: In a prospective trial involving three hospitals in the Zhejiang Province (China) 250 patients with a recent (less than 1 week previous) episode of ischemic stroke will be included. Patients will be randomized into two groups: an acupuncture group given scalp acupuncture and electroacupuncture, and a control group given no acupuncture. Eighteen treatment sessions will be performed over a three-week period. The primary outcome will be measured by changes in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at the one, three, and four-week follow-up. Secondary outcome measures will be: 1) the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale for motor function; 2) the mini-mental state examination and Montreal cognitive assessment for cognitive function; 3) the video-fluoroscopic swallowing study for swallowing ability; and 4) the incidence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: This trial is expected to clarify whether or not acupuncture is effective for acute stroke. It will also show if acupuncture can improve motor, cognitive, or swallowing function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-TRC-12001971.
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 | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 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".