MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2375677353

Observation on 56 Cases with Chronic Urticaria Treated by Acupoint Catgut Embedding Therapy

2012· article· en· W2375677353 on OpenAlexaff
LU Yong-hong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Venom Research
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectChronic urticariaLevocetirizineAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePharmacology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To observe the curative effect on chronic urticaria with acupoint catgut embedding therapy.Method.Methods: 112 patients with chronic urticaria patients were randomly divided into treatment group(n=56) and control group(n=56).Patients in the treatment group were treated with acupoint catgut embedding therapy.And patients in the control group were treated by Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride Tablets and point injection with Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride Injection.The patients are treated for 45 days consecutively,and a follow-up study was conducted on the Forty-sixth days and Ninetieth days after the end of treatment to observe the curative effect,recurernce rate and adverse reaction.Results: The treatment group achieved 73.2%,19.5% and 1.8% respectively in effectiveness,recurernce rate and adverse reaction,and that of the control group are 71.4%,57.5%,and 8.9%.There is no statistic difference between the two groups in effectiveness and adverse reaction(P0.05),while there is significant statistic difference(P0.01) in recurernce rate.Conclusion: The effectiveness and adverse reaction of treating chronic urticaria with acupoint catgut embedding therapy and Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride Tablets and point injection with Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride Injection are similar,but acupoint catgut embedding therapycan provide longer lasting effect and lower recurernce rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare and Venom ResearchFrench-language works237,207