MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520965644 · doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1337-0

Efficacy and safety assessment of acupuncture and nimodipine to treat mild cognitive impairment after cerebral infarction: a randomized controlled trial

2016· article· en· W2520965644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsNimodipineMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAcupunctureCerebral infarctionRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaInternal medicinePhysical therapyDementiaIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral infarction frequently leads to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Prompt management of MCI can prevent vascular dementia and improve patient outcome. This single center randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture and nimodipine to treat post-cerebral infarction MCI. METHODS: A total of 126 Chinese patients with post-cerebral infarction MCI recruited from the First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine between April 2013 and June 2014 were randomized at 1:1: 1 ratio into nimodipine alone (30 mg/time and 3 times daily), acupuncture alone (30 min/time, 6 times/week), and nimodipine + acupuncture groups. The treatments were 3 months. Cognitive function was evaluated using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale at enrollment interview, at the end of 3-month therapy, and at the post-treatment 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The per-protocol set included 39, 40, and 40 patients from nimodipine alone, acupuncture alone, and the combination group, respectively, was analyzed. Intra-group comparison revealed that MoCA score at the follow-up improved significantly by 15.8 ± 10.9, 20.9 ± 13.8 %, and 30.2 ± 19.7 % compared with the baseline MoCA for nimodipine alone, acupuncture alone, and the combination group, respectively. Inter-group comparison demonstrated that the combination therapy improved MoCA score (5.5 ± 2.2) at significantly higher extent than nimodipine alone (3.1 ± 1.8) and acupuncture alone (4.3 ± 2.3) at the follow-up (All P < 0.05), and significantly higher proportion of patients in acupuncture alone group (80 %) and the combination therapy group (90 %) than in nimodipine alone group (56.4 %) showed ≥12 % MoCA score improvement compared with the baseline MoCA (All P < 0.05). No adverse event was reported during the study. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture may be used as an additional therapy to conventional pharmacological treatment to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients with post-cerebral infarction MCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ , Unique Identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-15007366 ). The date of registration is November 4, 2015.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.299 · 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