Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether warm-needling is more effective than acupuncture in relieving the pain and improving the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis(OA). Methods: 76 volunteers with knee OA participated in the study. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group received warm-needling(n=38), while the other group received acupuncture(n=38). Sixteen sessions of warm-needling or acupuncture were conducted on the pain region of each problematic knee over a period of 8 weeks. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC) scores, physical health score based on the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey(SF-36) and the Global Assessment(PGA) was measured. Results: Compared to the acupuncture group, the warm-needling group showed a significant decrease in pain, function, and total WOMAC scores according to the Mann-Whitney U-test. The PGA scores of the warm-needling group also showed a significant improvement compared to the acupuncture group. Conclusions: Warm-needling showed a greater pain relief effect on knee OA compared to the acupuncture group. These findings suggest that warm-needling may be a promising alternative therapy for treating knee OA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".