Treating knee osteoarthritis with dialectical acupoint selection and electro-acupuncture: a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Objective] To discuss the effective method in acupuncture therapy on knee osteoarthritis. [Methods] The 210 patients were randomly divided into electro-acupuncture group, acupuncture group, acupuncture group plus Western medicine(WM) group with 70 cas-es in each group. The WM group was treated with oral administration of Glucosamine Hydrochloride capsules;the needle group was treated with dialectical acupoint selection;electroacupuncture group with dialectical acupoint selection based on a low frequency pulse current. Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC) and Chinese version of SF-16 were used to assess the therapeutic effect before treatment,4 and 9 weeks after treatment. [Results] Four weeks after treatment the total effective rate was 91.4%in the electro acupuncture group,85.3% in the needle group,81.4% in the WM group without significant difference(P0.05) among the three groups. At 9 weeks after treatment,the total effective rate( 87.1%) in the electro acupuncture group was better than that in the nee-dle group(77.9%) and in the WM group(58.6%),P0.05. There were no significant differences in comparison of WOMAC and SF-16scores 4 weeks after treatment among three groups. Nine weeks after treatment these patients were followed up and found that the electro needle group in improving these scores was superior than the needle group and WM group(P0.05). [Conclusion] The therapeutic effect in the early atage of electro acupuncture combined with differentiated acupoint acupuncture in treating knee osteoarthritis is similar to acupuncture group and the WM group, while the long-term efficacy of the electro-acupuncture group is much better than the acupuncture group and WM 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".