[Effect observation of float needle combined with reperfusion activity for pain induced by cyclomastopathy].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effect of float needle therapy combined with reperfusion activity for pain induced by cyclomastopathy. METHODS: Thirty-five female patients with cyclomastopathy were randomly divided into a comprehensive group (18 cases) and a float needle group (17 cases). In the comprehensive group, float needle manipulation was used at the centre of the biceps brachii belly or the ligature between the affected nipple and breast nodule, about 4 cm beside the exterior margin of the breast, and the reperfusion activity of the affected upper limb and breast was combined. In the float needle group, simple float needle therapy was adopted. In the two groups, treatment was started 7 ± 3 days before menstruation, once every other day. After 3-time treatment, the changes of short form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) scores before and after treatment, the time of pain relieved during the first treatment, recurrence in 3 months after treatment and the adverse reaction were observed. Also, the clinical effects of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Immediately at the end of the first treatment,after 3-time treatment and while followed up for one month, each item score and the total score of SF-MPQ were decreased apparently than the scores before treatment (all P < 0.05), and all the scores mentioned above of the comprehensive group were declined more obviously than those of the float needle group (all P < 0.05). The time of pain relieved during the first treatment of the comprehensive group was much shorter than that of the float needle group [(94.72 ± 33.67) s vs (162.06 ± 29.16) s, P < 0.01]. The recurrence rate of the comprehensive group in 3 months after treatment was 5.9% (1/17), which was better than 20.0% (3/15) of the float needle group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Float needle therapy combined with reperfusion activity and simple float needle therapy can both safely and effectively improve cyclomastopathy, and the combination therapy is better than simple float needle therapy in the aspects of pain relieving effect at once and the long term effect.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".