Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives : This study is aimed to review the latest articles in Korea and other contries that studied oriental medicine treatment on poststroke depression. Methods : Korean articles were retrieved on the 9 major Korean web article search engines. Foreign articles were retrieved on the PubMed. Articles published date was from 2000 up to september 2012. There were no restrictions on the types of publication, but an article not available full text was excluded. The methodological quality was assessed according to Cochrane’s assessment of risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Results : Twenty two articles were included in this study. Eleven articles were published in Korea, the others were published in China. Nine articles were randomized controlled trials (RCT), one article was non-randomized study (NRS), four articles were case reports, three articles were cross-sectional studies, two articles were comparative studies. In RCT articles, risk of selection bias and performance bias were generally high, risk of detection bias was unclear. NRS article took four stars in Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment. Comparison Hamilton rating scale for depression score between oriental medicine treated group and western medicine treated group revealed that there was no remarkable difference in mean score changes after treatment on PSD. Conclusions : The results of this study were able to suggest that oriental medicine treatment is as effective as western medicine treatment on PSD. In the future, more rigorous oriental medicine treatment studies should be conducted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".