The Anatomical Relationship Between Acupoints of the Face and the Trigeminal Nerve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Acupuncture continues to gain popularity as a first treatment option for a variety of conditions; however, an in-depth understanding of the relationships between the acupoints and the underlying anatomy of the human body is often unclear. This article updates the anatomical relationship between facial acupoints and the trigeminal nerve (CN V) and contrasts the results against the standard textbook Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion . Methods: A literature review, cadaver dissection, and a neuroanatomical stimulation of the CN V was conducted, focusing on the anatomical locations of the acupoints along the CN V on the face and nerve block targets. The results were contrasted against the standard acupoint location and nerve targets described in Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion . Results: The present article classifies CN V acupuncture targets according to 4 different types: (1) trunk; (2) bifurcation; (3) branch; and (4) anastomoses. The results of this exploration highlight the specificity with which acupoints are located in relation to the CN V. Areas of high nerve density correspond to several acupoints. Consequently, acupoints overlay closely with CN V branches as they emerge and bifurcate on the face. Conclusions: There is a clear and neuroanatomically relevant relationship between facial acupoints and the CN V.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".