Quantitative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Proximal Needling in Treating Cervical Spondylosis of Nerve Root Type
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the efficacy of traditional proximal needling in treating cervical spondylosis of nerve root type. Methods Sixty-six patients were randomly allocated to a treatment group (proximal needling plus electroacupuncture) and a control group (conventional needling plus electroacupuncture), 33 cases each. The therapeutic effects were evaluated using the simplified McGill pain scale, the cervical spinal function assessment table and the conventional criteria of the therapeutic effect after 20 days' treatment. Results The pain and neck function improved to a certain degree in both the treatment and control groups (P0.05). But the neck symptoms and signs, activities of daily living and the pain index improved more in the treatment group; there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P0.05). Conclusion Traditional proximal needling plus electroacupuncture can obviously improve the pain and neck function in patients with cervical spondylosis of nerve root type.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it