Clinical effect of warm needle penetration in treating knee osteoarthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore the clinical effect of warm needle penetration in treating knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: We randomly divided 118 patients with knee osteoarthritis into the observation group (n=59) and the control group (n=59). The observation group was treated with warm needle penetration combined with western medicine therapy, and the control group was only given western medicine therapy. The clinical effective rate, Visual analogue scale pain score, knee joint score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index and subjective satisfaction were observed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The clinical effective rate, knee joint score and subjective satisfaction rate were higher (all P<0.05), while the Visual analogue scale pain score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis indices score were lower in the observation group than in the control group (both P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Warm needle penetration can ameliorate the efficiency of treatment, reduce pain, and improve the range of knee joint motion and subjective satisfaction of patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".