Efficacy of overhung traction in treatment of lumbar disc herniation: an orthogonal,clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To study the optimal scheme of overhung traction for treating lumbar disc herniation( LDH). Methods: The L8( 27) orthogonal array L8( 27) for 3 factors at 2 levels was designed. A total of 160 patients with LDH were randomly and equally divided into 8 groups to receive treatments according to the orthogonal array. Before and after 14 d of treatment,the scores on Japanese Orthopaedic Association( JOA) Scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire( MPQ) were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: The JOA and MPQ scoring results indicated that the angle,time,and frequency of traction were significant influencing factors for the treatment outcome. After 14 d of treatment,the outcome was better at a traction angle of 90° than at 45°,for a traction time of 20 min than for 10 min,and once daily than once every other day. Conclusion: In the optimal scheme of 14-d treatment,overhung traction was performed at 90° once daily( 20 min each time).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".