Clinical Observation on 60 Cases of Nerve Root Type of Cervical Spondylosistreated by Rotation and Intermittent Traction from Different Angles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To observe the curative effect of rotation plus intermittent traction from different angles in the treatment of nerve root type of cervical spondylosis.Methods: From December 2006 to December 2007,60 patients with nerve root type of cervical spondylosis,who visited the department of orthopedics in affiliated hospital of Shaanxi College of TCM,were selected in the present study and randomly divided into treatment group(treated with rotation plus intermittent traction from different angles) and control group(treated with neutral-position traction).Yasuhisa Tanaka's assessment system and simplified McGill pain questionnaire were adopted to evaluate the pain.Results:The total effective rate in the treatment group was remarkably higher than that in control group(P0.05).Compared with before the treatment,there was significant difference in the pain scores after treatment in the treatment group(P0.01).After the treatment,the pain scores between the treatment group and control group were significantly different(P0.05),with better effect in treatment group than in control group.Conclusion:The therapy of rotation plus intermittent traction from different angles is superior to vertical traction in treating nerve root type of 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".