Electroacupuncture at Jing-jiaji points for neck pain caused by cervical spondylosis: a study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neck pain caused by cervical spondylosis (CS) has become one of the most common health problems around the world. Electroacupuncture (EA) has been employed to relieve CS neck pain, but there is limited clinical evidence for its effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This study consists of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel arms: an acupuncture group and an EA group. Both groups will receive acupuncture at Jing-jiaji points for 30 minutes each time, for five sessions per week for a total of 20 sessions during this four-week period. In addition, the EA group will be connected with EA apparatus. The following outcome measurements will be used in examination of subjects: the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scale. All these outcomes will be examined at the start of the study, at the end of the second week, at four weeks after randomization, and one and three months after treatment cessation respectively. DISCUSSION: This study aims to assess the efficacy of EA, compared with acupuncture intervention at Jing-jiaji points for the CS neck pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trials Register: ChiCTR-TRC-13003422.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.010 |
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".