[Electroacupuncture for post stroke cognitive impairment: a systematic review and Meta-analyses].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) for post stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). METHODS: The randomized clinical trials (RCTs) regarding EA for PSCI published before October of 2016 were researched in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), WanFang database, VIP medicine information system, PubMed and Cochrane Library. The literature screening and information extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers. The quality assessment was performed based on the guidance of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook, and Meta-analyses was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: =0.15]. CONCLUSION: This Meta-analyses confirmed EA is effective and safe for PSCI, which could improve cognitive function and motor function. However, because of low quality of the included studies, more well-designed multicenter RCTs are needed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".