Acupuncture of different treatment frequencies in knee osteoarthritis: a pilot randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This 16-week randomised controlled trial (8-week treatment followed by 8-week follow-up) evaluated the symptomatic improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis on 3 sessions per week of acupuncture (TSWA) compared to 1 session per week of acupuncture (OSWA). Sixty participants were randomised to either the TSWA or the OSWA group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was response rate, defined as the percentage of participants achieving ≥2 points decrease on the numerical rating scale (NRS) and ≥6 points decrease in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score at week 8 compared with baseline. Additional outcomes included response rates at weeks 4 and 16, NRS, WOMAC, Patient Global Assessment, 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and treatment credibility and expectancy. No significant difference was seen in response rate between TSWA and OSWA groups at week 8 (64.7% vs 50.0%; difference, 14.7 percentage points [95% CI, -10.1 to 39.4 percentage points], P = 0.435). At weeks 4 and 16, the TSWA group had higher response rates than the OSWA group (week-4: difference, 44.7 percentage points [95% CI, 23.2-66.1 percentage points], P = 0.001; week-16: difference, 46.0 percentage points [95% CI, 24.4-67.6 percentage points], P < 0.001). Participants in the TSWA group experienced significantly greater improvements in NRS, WOMAC function, and Patient Global Assessment than those in the OSWA group. There were no significant between-group differences in WOMAC stiffness and SF-12. In summary, TSWA immediately improved knee pain and dysfunction compared with OSWA. In addition, the benefit of TSWA persists throughout follow-up.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".