Clinical Observation of Xingnao Kaiqiao Acupuncture Therapy Combined with Scalp Needle for Thalamic Pain after Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To observe the clinical effect on thalamic pain after stroke by using Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture and scalp needle therapy. Methods: 58 patients with thalamic pain were randomly divided into two group: 29 cases received the combined treatment with Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture therapy and scalp needle method; 29 cases in the control group were by scalp needle therapy. Four weeks after treatment all patients were assessed with the methods of Visual Analogue Score( VAS),McGill Pain Questionnaire( MPQ) and the clinically curative rate as evaluation index of curative effect. Results: After four weeks,of the 29 cases in the treatment group,7 cases were healed; 14 cases were markedly better; 6 cases were effective; 2 cases were invalid. The total effective rate was 93. 10%. Of the 29 cases in the control group,3 cases were healed; 6 cases were markedly better; 12 cases were effective; 8 cases were invalid. The total effective rate was 72. 41%. Compared between the two groups,there was a significant difference between the total effective rates( P 0. 05) and the effective constitution( P 0. 05). Conclusion: It suggests that the curative effect of combined treatment with Xingnao Kaiqiao acupuncture therapy and scalp needle method is better than that of the scalp needle acupuncture for the treatment of thalamic pain. It can significantly reduce the pain and improve the quality of life among patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".