[Efficacy of thunder-fire moxibustion combined with external applicaion of <i>Shuangbai</i> powder for mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: powder and thunder-fire moxibustion alone for mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: powder was given to the affected knee after the treatment of thunder-fire moxibustion. Simple thunder-fire moxibustion was given in the control group. All patients in the two groups were treated once a day, 7 days as one course and the consecutive 4 courses were required, with an interval of 1 day between courses. Before and after treatment, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score were used to assessed knee pain, stiffness and physical function in the two groups. In addition, the efficacy was evaluated. RESULTS: <0.05). CONCLUSION: powder are superior to simple thunder-fire moxibustion in improving the symptoms and delaying the development of the disease for mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".