Clinical Study on Tuina Plus Yijinjing Exercise in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy between Tuina plus Yijinjing and Tuina therapies for knee osteoarthritis ( KOA). Methods:Sixty KOA cases were divided into two groups:treatment group in which 30 cases were treated by Tuina plus Yijinjing and control group in which another 30 cases were treated by Tuina,with a course of one month. Western Ontario Mac Master( WOMAC) scores were observed in the two groups before and after treatments. Results:After treatments,the WOMAC scores of overall symptoms,pain,stiffness and daily activity were reduced in both groups in comparison with before treatments ( P 0. 01) ; and the scores were reduced more significantly in treatment group than in control group( P 0. 05,P 0. 01). The improvement rate was higher in treatment group than in control group ( P 0. 01). Conclusion:Tuina plus Yijinjing and Tuina are quite effective for KOA,but Tuina plus Yijinjing works better than Tuina.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".