[Randomized controlled study on picking therapy for treatment of cervical spondylosis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To use randomized controlled clinical research method to assess therapeutic effect of picking therapy on cervical spondylosis. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-eight cases were randomly divided into a picking therapy group (n=56), a routine acupuncture group (n=55) and a local anesthesia group (n=47). They were treated respectively with picking therapy, routine acupuncture and local anesthesia at Jing bailao (EX HN 15), Dazhui (GV 14), Jianjing (GB 21), etc. Brief McGill Pain Questionaire was used for score, which was combined with clinical symptoms and signs to analyze the therapeutic effect. RESULTS: The cured rate was 57.1% in the picking therapy group, better than 23.6% in the acupuncture group and 14.9% in the local anesthesia group (P < 0.01), and adverse reaction was basically not found in the picking therapy group. CONCLUSION: Picking therapy is a highly effective and safe therapy for cervical spondylosis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".