[Clinical study of fire acupuncture with centro-square needles for knee osteoarthritis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy difference between fire acupuncture with centro-square needles (FACSN) and filiform needling (FN) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: points, Xuehai (SP 10), Liangqiu (ST 34), Neixiyan (EX-LE 4), Dubi (ST 35), Zusanli (ST 36), Yanglingquan (GB 34) and Yinlingquan (SP 9) were selected in the two groups. The FACSN group was treated with FACSN, and three acupoints were selected for each treatment; the FN group was treated with FN, and all the acupoints were selected for each treatment. The cupping treatment was given after acupuncture in the two groups. The treatment was given once every other day, without treatment on Sundays. The treatment was given three times a week, 6 times as one course; totally 2 courses were provided. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were observed in the two groups before treatment, two weeks, four weeks into treatment and at one-month follow-up visit. In addition, the comprehensive efficacy was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: <0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fire acupuncture with centro-square needles has relatively high cured and remarkable effective rate for KOA, with rapid onset; as for pain relief, the efficacy is superior to filiform needling.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".