[Light and heat of moxibustion for knee osteoarthritis：a multi-center randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical therapeutic effect of light and heat of moxibustion for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: A total of 216 patients with KOA were randomized into a traditional moxibustion group (72 cases, 8 cases dropped off), a moxibustion light group (72 cases, 9 cases dropped off) and a moxibustion heat group (72 cases, 10 cases dropped off).The special light-heat separation moxibustion cup was applied, the patients in the traditional moxibustion group received the treatment of moxibustion, the patients in the moxibustion light group received the treatment of moxibustion light and the patients in the moxibustion heat group received the treatment of moxibustion heat. The acupoint selection of the three groups was Neixiyan (EX-LE 4), Dubi (ST 35) and Zusanli (ST 36), the treatment was given 20 min each time, 3 times a week, 4 weeks were required totally, and the follow-up surveys were made 4 and 8 weeks after treatment. The scores of Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and visual analogue scale (VAS) were observed before treatment, after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, 4 and 8 weeks after treatment. The therapeutic effects were evaluated according to the criterion of patient global assessment (PGA) after 4 weeks of treatment and 8 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: <0.05). CONCLUSION: The light and heat of moxibustion have therapeutic effect for KOA, and the therapeutic effect of moxibustion heat is superior to moxibustion light.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".