Clinical Observation of Cinnamon Twig and Poria Decoction in Combination with Mifepristone in the Treatment of Uterine Fibroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the efficacy of mifepristone + cinnamon twig and poria decoction in patients with uterine fibroids. A total of 100 patients with uterine fibroids were enrolled in this study, who were treated in our hospital from March 2017 to October 2018. They were randomly divided into two groups: control group (n=50) and treatment group (n=50). The patients in the treatment group were treated with mifepristone + cinnamon twig and poria decoction and those in the control group received mifepristone alone. The sex hormone levels, treatment outcome and uterine fibroid volume were summarized in the two groups. Progesterone level in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05). The level of follicle stimulating hormone in the treatment group was lower than in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05). The estradiol level in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05). The level of luteinizing hormone in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05). The total response rate of the treatment group was higher than that of the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05).The sizes of uterine fibroids in the treatment group were smaller than those in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05). The response rate of mifepristone in combination with cinnamon twig and poria decoction is high in patients with uterine fibroids, which can significantly improve the sex hormone levels of patients, and remarkably reduce the volume of uterine fibroids.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".