Clinical Observation on Abdominal Acupuncture Treatment for Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy of abdominal acupuncture with conventional acupuncture in treating lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Methods One hundred and eighty patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation were randomly allocated to an abdominal acupuncture group of 90 cases and a conventional acupuncture group of 90 cases. The prescription,needle insertion depth and techniques,needle retention time,and treatment course were worked out. The therapeutic effects were evaluated by blinded assessors using McGill pain questionnaire and modified Japanese Orthopaedics Association Low Back Pain Score(M-JOA) . Results Of the 90 cases of the abdominal acupuncture group,49(54.4%) obtained an excellent effect,24(26.7%) obtained a good effect,13(14.4%) obtained a fair effect and 4(4.4%) obtained a poor effect,with a total efficacy rate of 95.6%. Of the 90 cases of the conventional acupuncture group,42(46.7%) obtained an excellent effect,22(24.4%) obtained a good effect,1(21.1%) obtained a fair effect and 7(7.8%) obtained a poor effect,with a total efficacy rate of 92.2%. Conclusion Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the total efficacy rate between the two groups,but there was a significant difference in the excellent-good rate between the two groups. The effect was better in the abdominal acupuncture group than in the conventional acupuncture 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".