Clinical Study of Acupotomy for Knee Osteoarthritis Based on the Meridian-Sinew Theory: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was performed to compare the effectiveness of acupotomy based on the meridian-sinew theory with acupotomy based on the anatomical theory in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). A total of 124 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized into the meridian-sinew (MS) group (63 patients) and anatomy group (61 patients). In the MS group, acupotomy based on the meridian-sinew theory was performed. In the anatomy group, acupotomy based on anatomy was applied. Patients were subgrouped by TCM Constitutions. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index and visual analog scale (VAS) were used to evaluate treatment effectiveness. The results showed that VAS (F = 22.61, p < 0.01 ) and WOMAC (F = 24.84, p < 0.01 ) scores declined with time, and there was no significant difference between the two groups nor subgroups (Yang deficiency subgroup, Yin-Yang harmony subgroup, and the subgroup of the others). A total of 5 patients reported 6 cases of the minor adverse effect, and all patients achieved complete recovery without medical intervention. This study indicates that the effectiveness and safety of acupotomy based on the meridian-sinew theory are equivalent to that of acupotomy based on anatomy in KOA treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".