Using pharmacopuncture for chronic tension-type headache treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: assessing pharmacopuncture effect on pain syndrome and level of anxiety-depressive disorders in patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). Materials and methods. An open-label controlled trial was conducted on 95 CTTH patients split among two groups by means of adaptive randomization. The comparison group subjects were receiving 35-70 mg/day of amitriptyline and 450 mg/day of tolperisone, while patients of the treatment group were assigned 2-4 courses of pharmacopuncture by the original method. The results were evaluated on the basis of the scores obtained via Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), McGill Pain Questionnaire, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) sensu Ch. Spielberger and Yu. Khanin. Results. Patients in both clinical groups were inclined to a positive evaluation of received treatment. Based on the results of McGill Pain Questionnaire, we determined both affective and sensory pain descriptors, with a predominance of the latter. Both groups exhibited moderate depressive symptoms according to BDI of the psychological status. Prevalence of trait anxiety over reactive anxiety was determined by STAI. According to VAS, pain intensity after the treatment declined from 5.26±0.87 to 1.7±0.78 points (p<0.05) and from 5.17±0.78 to 1.65±0.79 (p<0.05) in the comparison group versus the treatment group. An improvement of anxiety and depression indicators was detected. Conclusion. Our results have demonstrated that pharmacopuncture is very promising in treating CTTH patients
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".