The effect of wet-cupping therapy on pain alleviation of clients in Iranian Institute of Hejamat Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-third of people referred to physician for pain relief. Majority of people may consume drug. Thus this study was designed to determine the effect bloodletting on pain relief of clients in Iranian institute of Hejamat research. This study is clinical study which conducted before and after wet-cupping, on fifty sciatica pain suffers that were under treatment in the Iranian Institute of Hejamat Research The pain intensity before each wet-cupping therapy session (including: general cupping, sacral wet-cupping, cupping in direct of sciatic nerve, calf wet-cupping or the calf was involved) by numbering score which have 0-10 number score also called McGill up to 3-4 was performed. Data after collection was analyzed by computer used of SPSS package. our finding in this study showed that research population was including 56% male and 46% female. Majority of them have 40-49 years age (28%). Also the finding showed that pain severity of majority of samples before wet-cupping session was in range of 8-10,52% of patients have the pain score in range of 5-7/9, 50%, in first and second wet-cupping sessions and 21% of them (severe).In third session 17% of patients have pain score in range of 3-4/9 (moderate).In forth session 44% or majority of patients have pain score in range of 1-2/9 (mild).fifteen days after wet-cupping therapy majority of patients(44%) have pain score in range of 0-2/9 (mild). Our result in this study strongly emphasized that wetcupping therapy have beneficiation in treatment course of patients who have herniated lumbar disk disorders , with 95% confidence score , today the result various studies showed treatment with consuming drug wasn’t. Only treatment thus the result emphasized to researches trying to performing alternative treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".