MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964438308 · doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3599-6

Effects of electroacupuncture combined with computer-based cognitive rehabilitation on mild cognitive impairment: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

2019· article· en· W2964438308 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jae‐Hong Kim, Jae‐Young Han, Gwang-Cheon Park, Jeong-Soon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Health Industry Development InstituteMinistry of Health and WelfareDongshin University
KeywordsElectroacupunctureMedicineRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)CognitionRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentCognitive rehabilitation therapyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAcupunctureAlternative medicinePsychiatryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is defined as an intermediate stage between normal aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD), and early and easily available interventions to delay the progress of MCI to AD are necessary. Feasible complementary and alternative therapies such as electroacupuncture (EA), exercise, and cognitive training have shown some beneficial effects on MCI and AD. Here we report the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of EA combined with computer-based cognitive rehabilitation (EA-CCR) for the treatment of MCI. METHODS: The study will be a prospective, outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm, single-center (DongShin University Gwangju Korean Medicine Hospital, Republic of Korea), pilot randomized controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants with MCI will be randomized to a computer-based cognitive rehabilitation (CCR) or an EA-CCR group (n = 18 each). The CCR group will receive RehaCom cognitive rehabilitation once (30 min) a day, 3 days per week (excluding Saturday and Sunday) for 8 weeks. The EA-CCR group will receive EA at Baihui (GV20), Sishencong (EX-HN1), Fengchi (GB20), and Shenting (GV24) in addition to RehaCom cognitive rehabilitation once (EA:30 min, CCR:30 min) a day, 3 days per week (excluding Saturday and Sunday) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be an improvement in cognitive function assessed using the Korean version of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale. Scores for the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, Korean Activities of Daily Living scale, Korean Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale, and European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level Scale will be recorded as secondary outcome measures. All scores will be recorded at baseline (before intervention), 8 weeks after the first intervention (i.e., at the end of the intervention), and 12 weeks after completion of the intervention. DISCUSSION: The study is expected to provide preliminary evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and usefulness of EA-CCR for the treatment of MCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Korea Clinical Information Service, cris.nih.go.kr, KCT0003415 . Registered on 4 January 2019. Retrospectively registered, http://cris.nih.go.kr .

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207