The Correlation between the Treatment Time and Efficacy of Suspended Moxibustion on the Guanyuan Point for the Treatment of Primary Dysmenorrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary dysmenorrhea refers to lower abdominal pain, mild lumbago and discomfort in the lower abdomen during or before the menstrual period.Moxibustion has shown efficacy in the treatment of dysmenorrhea by removing blood stasis and relieving pain.The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacies of different treatment times of suspended moxibustion on the Guanyuan point for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea of the cold and damp stagnation type to seek the best length of moxibustion treatment.In this study, one hundred and twenty subjects were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into treatment groups (n = 30 per group): group 1 had suspended moxibustion for 15 min, group 2 had suspended moxibustion for 30 min, group 3 had suspended moxibustion for 60 min and group 4 had suspended moxibustion for 90 min.The simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the COX Menstrual Symptom Scale (CMSS) were used to record results from subjects.Data were analyzed via single factor analysis of variance and the differences between the groups were compared.With regards to the symptom score, significant differences were noted between groups 1, 2 and 3 (P<0.01),with a treatment time of 60 min resulting in improved symptoms, while there were no significant differences between groups 3 and 4. The results are as follows: suspended moxibustion on the Guanyuan point for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea resulted in remarkable improvement of symptoms.The moxibustion treatment time was an important factor that affected the efficacy.A treatment time of 60 min was found to be the optimum length of moxibustion, while more than 60 min did not further improve symptoms.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".