Effect and Neuroimaging Mechanism of Electroacupuncture for Vascular Cognitive Impairment No Dementia: Study Protocol for a Randomized, Assessor‐Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular cognitive impairment no dementia (VCIND) is likely to develop into vascular dementia (VD) without intervention. The clinical efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA) for VCIND has been previously demonstrated. However, the neuroimaging mechanism of EA for VCIND has not been elucidated clearly. This trial is designed to provide solid evidence for the efficacy and neuroimaging mechanism of EA treatment for patients with VCIND. This ongoing study is an assessor-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. 140 eligible subjects will be recruited from the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University and randomized into either the electroacupuncture (EA) group or the control group (CG). All subjects will receive basic treatment, and participants in the CG will receive health education performed weekly. Except for basic treatment and health education, participants in the EA group will receive treatment 5 times per week for a total of 40 sessions over 8 weeks. The primary outcome in this study is Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the secondary outcomes are Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), Stroop color-naming condition (STROOP), Rey-Osterrieth Complex Graphics Testing, and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). All of the outcome measures will be assessed at baseline and 8 weeks of intervention. The medical abstraction of adverse events will be done at each visit. The results of this trial will demonstrate the efficacy and neuroimaging mechanism of EA treatment for VCIND, thus supporting EA treatment as an ideal choice for VCIND treatment. The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 28 July 2018 (ChiCTR1800017398).
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".