Effectiveness and safety of acupotomy on lumbar spinal stenosis: A pragmatic randomized, controlled, pilot clinical trial: A study protocol.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a pathological condition that causes a variety of neurological symptoms due to narrowing of the anatomical structures; usually, conservative treatment is recommended, rather than surgical treatment. Acupotomy combines conventional acupuncture with small scalpels; the procedure can be considered minimally invasive, and has recently received considerable attention in clinical practice. Still, there is a lack of data and randomized controlled trials regarding acupotomy related to LSS. Additional studies are necessary, considering the low methodological quality and small size of the study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, pilot, randomized controlled trial. The trial comprises 8 weeks of treatment, with 16 visits and a 4-week follow-up period. Forty participants diagnosed with LSS will be randomly assigned to either the experimental or control groups; both groups will receive acupuncture and interferential current therapy twice a week for 8 weeks, while the experimental group will receive an additional acupotomy intervention once a week for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be assessed using the visual analog scale; the secondary outcome will be measured by self-rated walking distance, Oswestry Disability Index, and short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Measurements will be obtained prior to the start of the clinical trial, 4 weeks after the interventional procedure, 8 weeks after the procedure, and 4 weeks after the end of the interventional procedure. Blood tests and adverse reactions will be performed to ensure safety of the treatments. CONCLUSION: We expect that this study will provide basic data for future large-scale acupotomy studies regarding LSS.
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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".