Clinical Observation of Green Turtle Searching and Boring Acupuncture in Treating Ischioneuralgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To evaluate the pain easement degree of ischioneuralgia patients treated with green turtle searching and boring acupuncture by Mcgill pain measuring scale,and to observe the clinical curative effect.Methods:165 cases of ischioneuralgia patients were divided into two groups randomly.There were 82 patients in green turtle searching and boring acupuncture group and 83 patients in routine electric acupuncture group.Shenshu,Dachangshu,Yaoyangguan,Huantiao,Kunlun and living acupuncture point were chose in green turtle searching and boring acupuncture group.50～75mm were used.After DeQi,the acupuncture needles were drawn back to skin,and oblique needling at many directions,then deepen acupuncture needles.Acupuncture needles were not stayed.The points of routine electric acupuncture group were the same to the green turtle searching and boring acupuncture group.After DeQi,electric acupuncture machine(G6805-Ⅱ) was used.Continuous wave was selected,and frequency was 1.5～3.0Hz.This treatment last 30min.The patients in both groups were treated on alternate days.10 treatments were 1 course of treatment.Curative effects were observed after 1 course of treatment.The patients were quantized by pain rating index,combined with clinical symptoms and objective signs.Results:80 patients in green turtle searching and boring acupuncture group and 80 patients in routine electric acupuncture group were analyzed.①Post-treatment,effective power of green turtle searching and boring acupuncture group is 88.75%,while 57.5% in routine electric acupuncture group.There is significant difference between them(χ2=6.10,P=0.01).②After one course of treatment,score of pain rating index in green turtle searching and boring acupuncture group is better than routine electric acupuncture group's(P=0.00).Conclusion:Therapeutic effect of green turtle searching and boring acupuncture is better than routine electric acupuncture's and this therapeutic regimen is more satisfied.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".