A comparative study of a nerve block therapy with and without a deeply inserted acupotomy applied to hyeopcheok points for lumbosacral radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of lumbosacral radiculopathy is estimated to be approximately 3% to 5% in patient populations. Lumbosacral radiculopathy is largely caused by a complex interaction between biomechanical and biochemical factors. Nerve block therapy (NBT) mainly treats lumbosacral radiculopathy by improving the biochemical factors, whereas acupotomy mainly focuses on improving the biomechanical factors. Therefore, it is thought that synergistic effects may be obtained for the treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy when both NBT and acupotomy are combined. However, no study in China and Korea, where acupotomy is majorly provided, has reported the effects of such a combination treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the concurrent use of a deeply inserted acupotomy and NBT for the treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an open-label, parallel, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial, which will include 50 patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy. After patients voluntarily agree to participate in the study, they will be screened, and will undergo necessary examinations and tests according to the protocol. Those who satisfy the selection criteria will be randomly assigned to either the NBT + acupotomy or NBT groups in a 1:1 ratio. Both groups will undergo 2 NBTs once every 2 weeks from 1 week after the screening test. The treatment group will receive additional acupotomy twice a week for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint is the Oswestry Disability Index, whereas the secondary endpoints are the Numeral Rating Scale, European Quality of Life 5-dimension, McGill pain Questionnaire, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, safety assessment, and economic feasibility evaluation. The measurements will be made at 0, 2, 4, and 8 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has received complete ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital (IS20OISE0085). We intend to submit the results of the trial to a peer-reviewed journal and/or conferences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".