Protocol: Testing the Relevance of Acupuncture Theory in the Treatment of Myofascial Pain in the Upper Trapezius Muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A protocol for a prospective single-blind parallel four-arm randomized placebo-controlled trial with repeated measures was designed to test the effects of various acupuncture methods compared with sham. Eighty self-selected participants with myofascial pain in the upper trapezius muscle were randomized into four groups. Group 1 received acupuncture to a myofascial trigger point (MTrP) in the upper trapezius. Group 2 received acupuncture to the MTrP in addition to relevant distal points. Group 3 received acupuncture to the relevant distal points only. Group 4 received a sham treatment to both the MTrP and distal points using a deactivated acupuncture laser device. Treatment was applied four times within 2 weeks with outcomes measured throughout the trial and at 2 weeks and 4 weeks posttreatment. Outcome measurements were a 100-mm visual analog pain scale, SF-36, pressure pain threshold, Neck Disability Index, the Upper Extremity Functional Index, lateral flexion in the neck, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Massachusetts General Hospital Acupuncture Sensation Scale, Working Alliance Inventory (short form), and the Credibility Expectance Questionnaire. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures were used to assess the differences between groups.
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 | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.015 |
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".