[Cupping treatment combined with antibiotics for bacterial pneumonia in children: a randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of cupping treatment combined with antibiotics and antibiotics alone for bacterial pneumonia in children. METHODS: A total of 72 children with bacterial pneumonia were randomly divided into an observation group (36 cases, 1 case dropped off) and a control group (36 cases). The children in the control group were treated with intravenous drip of cefodizine sodium [80 mg/(kg•d)] for 7 days. Based on the treatment of the control group, the children in the observation group were treated with cupping treatment on the bladder meridian of the back on the first day and the fourth day of antibiotic treatment; each cupping treatment was given for 5-10 min; the treatment of observation group was given for 7 days. The days for complete fever reduction, TCM syndrome scores and Canadian acute respiratory illness flu scale (CARIFS) scores before and after treatment were observed, and the clinical efficacy was evaluated. RESULTS: >0.05). CONCLUSION: Cupping treatment combined with antibiotics has similar efficacy with antibiotics alone for bacterial pneumonia in children, but shows better effect in shortening the duration of fever and improving pulmonary symptoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".