Warm-needling acupuncture and medicinal cake-separated moxibustion for hyperlipidemia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acupuncture and moxibustion has been widely applied to hyperlipidemia treatment in clinical practice in China, serving as an alternative treatment to statins. Warm-needling acupuncture and medicinal cake-separated moxibustion have been separately reported with potential therapeutic effects on hyperlipidemia treatment in several studies but with limitations in study methodology. Combining these two modalities may provide a more advantageous strategy in treating hyperlipidemia. Therefore, a strict evaluation through well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) is necessary to determine their efficacy and safety on hyperlipidemia. METHODS: The study a multicenter, open-label, randomized, stratified, active-controlled, noninferiority trial with two parallel groups. Subjects with hyperlipidemia will be stratified into different groups by risk levels of heart diseases. They then will be instructed to the Therapeutic Lifestyle Change (TLC) diet. Those who have not reached the target lipid level will be randomly assigned to the treatments of either acupuncture and moxibustion or simvastatin with a 1:1 allocation. One hundred and thirty subjects are aimed to be recruited. The duration of intervention for this study will be 12 weeks, followed by another 4 weeks for post-treatment assessment. The primary outcome is percentage change from baseline to the end of the study in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Other indicators in lipid change, safety and adherence will also be assessed secondarily. The repeated measures, linear mixed-effects model will be applied to the analysis. DISCUSSION: Acupuncture and moxibustion could be a potentially effective treatment alternative for hyperlipidemia. A study with careful design is developed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined acupuncture and moxibustion, by integrating the traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) regimens with the standardized Western medicine appraisal approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02269046 . Registered on 26 September 2014.
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 | 0.033 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.011 |
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".