Comparing the effects of acupoint irradiation with 650 nm-10.6 µm compound laser or RLED phototherapy on patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effects of 650nm-10.6μm compound laser on patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Fifty-six patients with knee OA were randomly divided into compound laser group and RLED group (28 per group), receiving a 20-minute irradiation with 650nm-10.6μm compound laser or red light emitting diode respectively on acupoint Dubi (ST35) for 6 weeks, 14 times in all. This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical study; main outcome measures were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ Osteoarthritis Scale (WOMAC VA3.1) scores. In addition, patients’ global assessment was analyzed. Results: No difference of general data of patients was found in between-group comparison before treatment (P0.05),either of WOMAC scores (pain, stiffness and function, respectively) were found in between-group comparison (all P0.05). The WOMAC scores (pain, stiffness and function, respectively) of both goups reduced significantly compared with baseline after 2 or 6 weeks treatment and 4 weeks after treatment (all P0.01); Though there was no significant difference of WOMAC scores (pain, stiffness and function, respectively) between two groups (all P0.05), the reduce rate of the compound laser group was better than that of the RLED group. Neither the patients’ global assessment showed statistical differences between two groups (P0.05). Conclusion: 650nm-10.6μm compound laser was beneficial to patients with knee OA. But there was no statistical differences between the compound laser and the red light irradiation. Further study and a larger sample-size were required.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".