Efficacy and safety of thread embedding acupuncture for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the efficacy and safety of thread-embedding acupuncture (TEA) for chronic low back pain (LBP) in a randomized controlled pilot trial with the aim of laying the foundation for a large-scale randomized controlled trial on this topic. METHODS: Forty participants were recruited for this two-arm, assessor-blinded randomized controlled pilot trial. The participants were randomly allocated to a TEA group (experimental group) or an acupuncture group (control group). The TEA group received TEA once every 2 weeks for 8 weeks (four sessions in total), while the acupuncture group received acupuncture twice per week for 8 weeks (16 sessions in total). The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and the secondary outcomes were short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Assessments were performed at screening and at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks after treatment initiation (the 10-week assessment was conducted at 2 weeks after treatment cessation). RESULTS: Of the 40 participants, 36 completed the study and four dropped out. Both the TEA group and the acupuncture group showed significant improvements in VAS, SF-MPQ, and ODI scores in a time-dependent manner. Furthermore, with regard to ODI, a significant interaction between group and time was observed, with the two groups exhibiting a different pattern of change at 8 weeks according to contrast analysis with Bonferroni's correction. No serious adverse event occurred, and hematological and biochemical test findings were within normal limits. CONCLUSION: This pilot study has provided basic data for a larger clinical trial to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of TEA for chronic LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service of the Korea National Institute of Health, ID: KCT0001819 . Registered on 15 February 2016.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".