MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

高压氧治疗带状疱疹后遗神经痛的临床疗效观察

2013· article· sv· W3029905412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
刘清华, 潘曙明, 孟庆刚, 朱剑铭, 俞亚红

Bibliographic record

VenueChin J Postgrad Med · 2013
Typearticle
Languagesv
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

目的 观察高压氧治疗带状疱疹后遗神经痛(PHN)患者的临床疗效.方法 108例PHN患者按照随机数字表法分为对照组和治疗组,每组54例;对照组给予口服卡马西平治疗,治疗组在药物治疗的基础上加用高压氧治疗,均治疗30 d.两组分别于治疗前后进行简化McGill疼痛问卷表(SF-MPQ)和抑郁自评量表(SDS)测评,并判定临床疗效;对疼痛评估指数(PRI)、视觉类比量表(VAS)评分、SDS评分和临床疗效进行比较.结果 治疗组总有效率显著高于对照组[90.74%(49/54)比72.22%(39/54)],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).对照组和治疗组治疗后PRI、VAS评分和SDS评分均较治疗前改善(P<0.05);治疗组治疗后PRI、VAS评分与同期对照组比较差异有统计学意义[8.15±10.78比14.41±14.25、(1.81±2.32)分比(3.09±3.06)分,P<0.05];治疗组治疗后PRI、VAS评分和SDS评分改善与同期对照组比较差异有统计学意义[18.50±12.10比12.48±13.65、(4.76±2.63)分比(3.46±3.03)分、(32.54±20.25)分比(24.13±21.08)分,P<0.05].结论 高压氧治疗能改善PHN患者疼痛症状,改善患者的生活质量。

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.034

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.311 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChin J Postgrad MedSame topicMedical Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207