Observations on the Therapeutic Effect of Balancing Acupuncture on Lumbar Intervertebral disc Herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To Investigate the clinical therapeutic effect of balancing acupuncture on lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.Methods One hundred and eighty-four patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation were randomly allocated to treatment and control groups.The treatment group received balancing acupuncture and the control group,conventional acupuncture with filiform needles.Pre-and post-treatment the Doctor Pain Assessment,the Simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire(MPQ) and the Oswestry Disability Index scores were compared in the two groups.Results There were statistically significant pre-/post-treatment differences in the Doctor Pain Assessment,the MPQ and the Oswestry Disability Index scores in the two groups of patients(P0.01).Conclusions both balancing acupuncture and conventional acupuncture with filiform needles have a very good analgesic effect and improving action on dysfunction in treating lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.Balancing acupuncture also has the advantages of no retention of needle,and quick effect.
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".