Efficacy and safety of acupoint catgut embedding in treating postoperative pain of mixed hemorrhoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is a common complication after mixed hemorrhoids, which seriously affects the recovery of patients and prolongs the length of hospital stay. Acupoint catgut embedding has advantages in improving a variety of acute and chronic pain diseases, but there is still a lack of rigorous randomized controlled studies to verify its efficacy and safety in the treatment of postoperative pain of mixed hemorrhoids. Therefore, the purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of acupoint catgut embedding in the treatment of postoperative pain of mixed hemorrhoids. METHODS: This is a prospective randomized controlled trial to study the efficacy and safety of acupoint catgut embedding in the treatment of postoperative pain of mixed hemorrhoids. Approved by the clinical research ethics committee of our hospital, the patients were randomly divided into observation group and control group according to 1:1. The observation group received acupoint catgut embedding before the operation, while the control group received no special treatment. The efficacy and safety indexes were concerned after the operation, and the observation indexes included: resting state and visual analogue scale (VAS) score during defecation, postoperative hospitalization time, total amount of analgesic use, adverse reactions, etc. Finally, we carried on the data statistical analysis through the SPSS version 19.0. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint catgut embedding in the treatment of postoperative pain of mixed hemorrhoids, and the results of this study will provide a new idea for the selection of postoperative analgesia for mixed hemorrhoids resection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T2ZGY.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".