[Intervention with thumbtack needling on spinal low back pain in Air Force crew: a randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effect on spinal low back pain (SLBP) in Air Force crew treated with novel thumbtack needling therapy and to analyze the relevant factors of the therapeutic effect. METHODS: plaster was compressed on the center of the tender site in the lumbar region, once daily, consecutively for 6 days as one course. At an interval of 1 day, 2 courses were required totally. In the combined treatment group, the treatments in the thumbtack needling group and the external treatment group were used in combination. Before and after treatment, McGill score and the score of Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) were compared in the patients among the three groups. The average EMG (AEMG) and the mean power frequency (MPF) were analyzed by using JE-TB0810 electromyography (EMG) acquisition system to evaluate the erector spinae tension in the patients before and after treatment. The clinical effect was observed in the patient of each group and the safety was evaluated. Logistic analysis was performed on the relevant factors of therapeutic effect in the patients. RESULTS: <0.001). CONCLUSION: The thumbtack needling therapy is significantly effective on spinal low back pain in Air Force crew and is of the safety. Hence, this therapy is applicable to be promoted in the primary care army hospital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".