[Observation on therapeutic effect of fire-needle therapy on lumbar intervertebral disc herniation].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe the therapeutic effect of fire-needle therapy on lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. METHODS: Sixty cases were randomly divided into a fire-needle group and an electroacupuncture group, 30 cases in each group. The fire-needle group was treated with fire-needle therapy and routine acupuncture, i.e., the fire-needle was given to the points on the lesion segments, and Jiaji (EX-B 2) and Ashi points above and bellow the segments, and routine acupuncture was given at Shenshu (BL 23), Zhibian (BL 54), Huantiao (GB 30), etc.; the electroacupuncture group was treated with electroacupuncture at the points as those in the fire-needle group. The scores of McGill Pain Rating Scale, Visual Analogous Scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) were compared before and after treatment for 2 weeks in the two groups. RESULTS: After treatment, all of the scores of McGill Pain Rating Scale, VAS and PPI were significantly decreased (all P < 0.01); the scores of emotion in the McGill Pain Rating Scale, VAS and PPI in the fire-needle group were significantly decreased as compared with those of the electroacupuncture group (P < 0.05, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Both fire-needle therapy and electroacupuncture can effectively relieve pain in the patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation, but the former is better than the latter.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".