Clinical Study on Tuina plus Ointment Rubbing in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy between Tuina plus ointment rubbing and Tuina therapies for knee osteoarthritis(KOA).Methods:Eighty KOA cases were divided into two groups randomly:treatment group in which 40 cases were treated by Tuina plus ointment rubbing and control group in which 40 cases were treated by Tuina,with a course of ten times treatments.Western Ontario Mac Master(WOMAC) scores were observed in the two groups before and after treatments.Rectus muscle tension was measured in the two groups before and after treatments.Results:After treatments,the WOMAC scores of overall symptoms,pain,stiffness and daily activity were reduced in both groups in comparison with those before treatments(P 0.01).Rectus muscle tension was increased in both groups in comparison with those before treatments(P 0.01) and the scores were reduced more significantly in treatment group than those in control group(P 0.05).The improvement rate of WOMAC was higher in treatment group than that in control group(P 0.01).The improvement rate of rectus muscle tension had no significant difference in treatment group than that in control group(P 0.05).Conclusion:Tuina plus ointment rubbing and Tuina are quite effective for KOA,but Tuina plus ointment rubbing works better than Tuina.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".