[Observation on analgesic effect of acupuncture combined with manipulation on cervicogenic headache].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare therapeutic effects between nape acupuncture combined with manipulation and simple manipulation in treating cervicogenic headache, and to verify the synergistic effect of manipulation and nape acupuncture. METHODS: spinous processes, and after retaining the needle for 30 minutes, the manipulation therapy was performed at the above points for 20 minutes. In the group B, manipulation therapy was performed alone. The patients in both groups were treated once a day, every 5 days of treatment interval 2 days, 10 times as a course of treatment, a total of 2 courses of treatment. The average onset time of analgesia and the average maintenance time of analgesia after the first treatment were observed, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire was used to compare the average pain scores between the two groups after the first treatment and two courses of treatment. RESULTS: <0.05). CONCLUSION: Nape needling can prolong the analgesic time of manipulation and improve the analgesic effect of manipulation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".