Clinical Observation of Different Needle-retaining Time in Treating Acute Lumbar Sprain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To conduct a comparative study on the therapeutic efficacies of different needle-retaining time in treating acute lumbar sprain,and to provide scientific evidence for optimizing the needle-retaining time in acupuncture analgesia.Method Eighty patients with acute lumbar sprain were randomized into 4 groups,namely 20-min,30-min,45-min,and 60-min groups.The internationally recognized descriptions and McGill Pain Questionnaire were employed as observation indexes.The changes of component scores of pain before and after treatment were recorded,and the therapeutic efficacies of the interventions differed by needle-retaining time were comparatively evaluated.Result The statistical analyses showed that the four groups all had significant changes in Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) and present pain intensity(PPI) after treatment(P0.05,P0.01); the analgesic effect of the 45-min group was significantly better than that of the 20-min,30-min,and 60-min groups.Conclusion This study suggests that the best needle-retaining time in relieving pain of acute lumbar sprain should be 45 min.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".