Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To observe the cumulative pain effect of electroacupuncture(EA)and to analyze its relation with the memory. Methods:60 cases of sciatica patients were randomly divided into improving memory plus EA analgesia group(n=30)and EA analgesia group(n=30).EA analgesia group selected the points of Zusanli,Yanglingquan,Huantiao,Weizhong,Shenshu and Dachangshu.Improving memory plus EA analgesia group selected the points of Zusanli,Yanglingquan,Huantiao,Weizhong,Shenshu,Dachangshu plus Baihui and Sishencong.Determination of efficacy endpoints with a simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire,the pain index(PPI),before treatment,after EA two days,and after EA ten days efficacy endpoint was measured. Results:Compared with before treatment,EA two days later,PPI scores of the two groups were no significant difference(P0.05),after a course of EA,PPI scores were significantly lower after treatment in both groups than before treatment(P0.05).PPI score of Improving memory plus EA analgesia group was significantly lower than electroacupuncture analgesia group(P0.05). Conclusion:Repeated electroacupuncture has a cumulative analgesic effect,and memory enhancements can increase the cumulative effect of acupuncture analgesia to some extent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".