MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

中西医结合治疗原发性三叉神经痛

2012· article· ms· W3030345044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
周莹

Bibliographic record

VenueZhongguo jiceng yiyao · 2012
Typearticle
Languagems
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraditional medicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

目的 探讨中西医结合治疗原发性三叉神经痛的临床疗效.方法 102例原发性三叉神经痛患者按就诊顺序随机分为A、B、C三组,A组采用卡马西平治疗,B组采用中药治疗,C组采用中药联合西药治疗;根据简式McGill疼痛问卷评定三组患者治疗前后疼痛等级,同时观察三组患者治疗后的临床疗效.结果 治疗后,三组重度疼痛发生率分别为19.35%、11.76%和2.70%,三组疼痛症状均得到缓解,其中C疼痛缓解最明显,三组在疼痛等级上差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).A组、B组和C组的临床有效率分别为64.52%、73.53%和86.49%,三组临床效果差异有统计学意义(x2=8.565,P<0.05).结论 三种治疗方法均可缓解原发性三叉神经痛,其中中药联合西药组临床疗效最好。

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhongguo jiceng yiyaoSame topicMilitary Technology and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207