[Knee osteoarthritis treated with acupuncture at Neiguan (PC 6) and Taichong (LR 3)].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy difference in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis between acupuncture at Neiguan (PC 6) and Taichong (LR 3) and the conventional acupoints. METHODS: Forty four cases were random into a Neiguanc (PC 6) Taichong (LR 3) group observation group (20 cases) and a conventional group control group (24 cases). In the observention group, acupuncture was applied to Neiguan (PC 6) on the healthy side and Taichong (LR 3) on the affected side. The acupoints were selected bilaterally if both knees were affected. In the control group, acupuncture was applied to Yanglingquan (GB 34), Yinlingquan (SP 9), Neixiyan (EX-LE 4), Dubi (ST 35), Zusanli (ST 36) and the others on the affected side. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used for assessment of theraputic effect after treatment. RESULTS: The score of VAS and pain, stiffness and function impairment of WOMAC were lower apparently than those before treatment in both groups (all P < 0.001). VAS score after treatment in the observation group was lower apparently than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The differences in each item score of WOMAC after treatment were not significant statistically between the two groups (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Acupuncture at Neiguan (PC 6) and Taichong (LR 3) achieves the similar efficacy on knee osteoarthritis as the conventional acupoints, but the former is more simple and convenient.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".