MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151913901

Controlled randomized trial on therapeutic effects of acupotomy-injection combined with Feng's spinal manipulation(FSM) for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy

2008· article· en· W3151913901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
TU Chang-y

Bibliographic record

VenueZhongguo gushang · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Venom Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTherapeutic effectSurgeryTreatment and control groupsRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaMcGill Pain QuestionnaireInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To evaluate the therapeutic effects of acupotomy-injection with FENG Tian-you spinal manipulation(FSM) for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy(CSR). Methods:Seventy-two patients with CSR were randomly divided into two groups(n=36 respectively):treatment and control group. The patients in treatment group were treated with acupotomy-injection combined with FSM,and patients in control group were treated with traction. All the patients were followed up for 3 months after treatment and the therapeutic effects were evaluated. Results:Totally there were 72 patients and 69 completed the treatment and the other 3 patients withdraw from treatment. In treatment group,24 patients were cured,6 patients had remarkable effects,4 effective and 2 ineffective;as well in control group,above data were 15,3,10 and 8 respectively. The comprehensive effects and the cured patients in the treatment group were obviously better than those of control group(P0.05). The comparison of scales for assessment of symptoms and short-form McGill Pain Questionaire before and after treatment in two groups had significant differences(P0.001). Conclusion:The method of acupotomy-injection combined with FSM for treating CSR is better than conventional traction method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhongguo gushangSame topicHealthcare and Venom ResearchFrench-language works237,207