Cognitive Improvement Effects of Electroacupuncture Combined with Computer-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This outcome assessor-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated the effects of electroacupuncture combined with computer-based cognitive rehabilitation (EA-CCR) on mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A per-protocol analysis was employed to compare the efficacy of EA-CCR to that of computer-based cognitive rehabilitation (CCR). Thirty-two patients with MCI completed the trial (EA-CCR group, 16; CCR group, 16). Patients received EA-CCR or CCR treatment once daily three days per week for eight weeks. Outcome (primary, ADAS-K-cog; secondary, MoCA-K, CES-D, K-ADL, K-IADL, and EQ-5D-5L) measurements were performed at baseline (week 0), at the end of the intervention (week 8), and at 12 weeks after completion of the intervention (week 20). Both groups showed significant changes in ADAS-K-cog score (EA-CCR, p < 0.001; CCR, p < 0.001) and MoCA-K (EA-CCR, p < 0.001; CCR, p < 0.001). Only the EA-CCR group had a significant change in CES-D (p = 0.024). No significant differences in outcomes and in the results of a subanalysis based on age were noted between the groups. These results indicate that EA-CCR and CCR have beneficial effects on improving cognitive function in patients with MCI. However, electroacupuncture in EA-CCR showed no positive add-on effects on improving cognitive function, depression, activities of daily living, and quality of life in patients with MCI.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".