[Clinically randomized controlled study on abdominal acupuncture for treatment of cervical spondylosis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical therapeutic effects of abdominal acupuncture and traditional acupuncture on cervical spondylosis (CS). METHODS: Sixty-two cases of neck or nerve-root type CS were randomly divided into an observation group (n=32) treated by abdominal acupuncture at Zhongwan (CV 12), Guanyuan (CV 4) and others, and a control group (n=30) treated by traditional acupuncture at Fengchi (GB 20) and cervical Jiaji (EX-B 2), etc.. Simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and clinical therapeutic effects were served as the objective indexes. Their clinical therapeutic effects were compared after the first session of treatment, at the end of therapeutic course and 3 months after the end of treatment. RESULTS: The two groups had a same effective rate of 100.0%. All items of MPQ in these two groups after treatment and 3 months after the end of treatment significantly improved, and in the observation group the differences in the PRI feeling score before and after the first treatment, and the difference of the total PRI scores after the first treatment, at the end of therapeutic course and 3 months after the end of treatment significantly improved as compared with the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Abdominal acupuncture can better reduce the pain of the patient caused by CS, with transient pain-alleviating effect, but whether or not the clinical therapeutic effect of abdominal acupuncture is better than the traditional acupuncture still can not be proved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".