Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的：观察在不同角度牵引下进行旋转加间歇式牵引治疗神经根型颈椎病的疗效。方法：选择2006年12月～2007年12月在陕西中医学院附属医院骨科就诊的60例神经根型颈椎病患者,随机分为治疗组（采用旋转、角度、间歇式牵引治疗）和对照组（采用中立位牵引治疗）。使用日本田中靖久的评定法及简化MCGill疼痛询问量表进行疼痛积分评价。结果：治疗组与对照组总有效率比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,治疗组优于对照组;治疗组治疗前后疼痛积分比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;治疗后疼痛积分治疗组与对照组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,治疗组优于对照组。结论：旋转、角度、间歇式牵引治疗神经根型颈椎病的疗效优于垂直牵引。
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".