MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416249607

[Different Warm Sensations May Induce Different Therapeutic Effects in Primary Dysmenorrhea Patients Undergoing Moxibustion Treatment Based on Propensity Score: A Prospective Cohort Study].

2015· article· en· W2416249607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jun Xiong, Wei Zhang, Lin Jiao, Zhenhai Chi, Yong Fu, Dingyi Xie, Rixin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMoxibustionMcGill Pain QuestionnaireSensationMenstrual cycleVisual analogue scaleTherapeutic effectProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyCohort studyCohortThermal sensationAnesthesiaInternal medicineAcupunctureHormonePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness difference between the "heat-sensitive" sensation and conventional warm sensation of moxibustion stimulation of Guanyuan (GV 4) in primary dysmenorrhea (PD) patients. METHODS: Cohort study design was used in the present study. A total of 189 PD patients were divided into heat-sensitive group (n = 148) and conventional warm sensation group (n = 41) according to the patients' subjective feeling to moxibustion stimulation and the sequence of treatment. The Propensity Score Match (PSM)function of SPSS 19.0 software was used to match the patients of the two groups for balancing their baseline data (age, duration of illness, McGill and CMSS scores). Thus, 35 cases in each group were subjected into the analysis at last. Heat-sensitive moxibustion was applied to Guanyuan (GV 4) for 40 min beginning 5 days before dysmenorrheal attack, once daily for (7 ± 2) days in one menstrual cycle, and for 3 menstrual cycles for heat-sensitive group, wheras routine moxibustion for conventional warm sensation group. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) composed of pain rating index (PRI), visual analogue scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) and COX Menstrual Symptom Scale (CMSS) containing 18 items (0 - 4 grades/item) were used to evaluate the therapeutic effect of moxibustion treatment. Follow-up visit was conducted 3 months after the treatment. RESULTS: Compared to pre-treatment, MPQ and CMSS scores were significantly decreased in both groups after the treatment (P<0.01), and the effects of heat-sensitive group were significantly superior to those of conventional warm sensation group in lowering MPQ and CMSS scores (P<0.01). Follow-up survey showed that both MPQ and CMSS scores were still considerably lower in the heat-sensitive group than in the conventional warm sensation group (P<0.01, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The heat-sensitive moxibustion is superior to conventional warm moxibustion in improving symptoms in primary dysmenorrhea patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207