Assessor‐ and participant‐blinded, randomized controlled trial of dense cranial electroacupuncture stimulation plus body acupuncture for neuropsychiatric sequelae of stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Acupuncture has benefits in the rehabilitation of neuropsychiatric sequelae of stroke. This study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dense cranial electroacupuncture stimulation plus body acupuncture (DCEAS+BA) in treating poststroke depression (PSD), functional disability, and cognitive deterioration. METHODS: In this assessor- and participant-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 91 stroke patients who initially had PSD were randomly assigned to either DCEAS+BA (n = 45) or minimum acupuncture stimulation as controls (n = 46) for three sessions per week over 8 consecutive weeks. The primary outcome was baseline-to-end-point change in score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes included the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale for depressive symptoms, the Barthel Index for functional disability, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for cognitive function. RESULTS: DCEAS+BA-treated patients showed strikingly greater end-point reduction than MAS-treated patients in scores of the three symptom domains. The clinical response rate, defined as an at least 50% baseline-to-end-point reduction in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score, was markedly higher in the DCEAS+BA-treated group than that of controls (40.0% vs 17.4%, P = 0.031). Incidence of adverse events was not different in the two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that DCEAS+BA with electrical stimulation on forehead acupoints was more apparent in reducing Barthel-Index-measured disability than that without electrical stimulation. CONCLUSION: DCEAS+BA, particularly with electrical stimulation on forehead acupoints, reduces PSD, functional disability, and cognitive deterioration of stroke patients. It can serve as an effective rehabilitation therapy for neuropsychiatric sequelae of stroke.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".