MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006465106 · doi:10.13702/j.1000-0607.180832

[Effect of "Buqi Yixue" needling on neurological function and nerve conduction velocity in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy].

2019· article· en· W3006465106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hai-Lan Zhan, Qingping Tang, Xi Tang, Li-Hua Ruan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNerve conduction velocityDry needlingPeripheral neuropathyPeripheralDiabetic neuropathyAcupunctureAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To observe the efficacy of "Buqi Yixue "needling on clinical symptoms, neurological function and nerve conduction velocity in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: Eighty-six patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy numbness and pain were equally randomized into control group and treatment group. The patients of the control group received basic treatment and oral administration of Cilostazol (50 mg/time, 2 times/d) and Epalrestat (50 mg/time, 3 times/d). The patients of the treatment group received acupuncture stimulation of Danzhong (CV17), Qihai (CV6), Pishu (BL20), Quchi (LI11), etc., for 30 min, once every day, on the basic treatment. The treatment was conducted for 8 successive weeks. The scores of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) symptoms, Toronto clinical scoring system (TCSS) and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) were detected before and after the treatment. RESULTS: <0.01). CONCLUSION: Buqi Yixue" needling is effective in improving clinical symptoms and increasing NCV in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207