[Study on the effects of the auricular acupuncture with different manipulations for rapid analgesia on the patients with lumbar disc hernia].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the point-to-point needling and perpendicular needling of auricular acupuncture for rapid analgesia on the patients with lumbar disc hernia, and find which method is better for this disease. METHODS: Ninety two patients were paired according to the three factors as sex, age and degree of pain, and then randomly divided into the point-to-point needling group and perpendicular needling group. The methods of point-to-point needling through the skin and perpendicular needling towardS the skin were respectively applied at bilateral lumbar areas as auricular acupuncture, and added acupoints following the change of symptom. All patients accorded with the demands of McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), before treatment, 5 and 30 min after treatment, the accumulated score of pain was recorded respectively for observing the difference of the effects in both groups. RESULTS: After 5 min treatment, the effect of analgesia on the male patients in the point-to-point needling group was better than that of in the perpendicular needling group (P<0.05), but there was no difference on the female patients in both groups (P>0.05). After 30 min treatment, the effect of analgesia in the point-to-point needling group was better than that of the perpendicular needling group (P<0.05). Besides the patients with light degree pain, there was no significant difference between the two groups after 5 min treatment as score of pain (P>0.05), paired t-test showed that the effects of analgesia on the patients with lumbar disc hernia in the point-to-point needling group was better than that of perpendicular needling group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The point-to-point needling method can rapidly relieve patients' lumbar disc hernia of pain, which is better than the perpendicular needling method.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".