The efficacy and safety of warming acupuncture and moxibustion combined with Chinese herb medicine on knee osteoarthritis A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review question / Objective: P： Patients with knee osteoarthritis; I: The treatment group includes warming acupuncture and moxibustion combination with Chinese herb medicine at least; C: while the control group is the comparison of western medicine or other physical therapy.;O: overall response rate, pain score (such as the visual analogue scale [VAS]); joint function score (such as Lysholm score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index [WOMAC], and other scoring systems), daily life quality score (such as SF-36 score [the MOS item short from health survey]), and adverse reactions.;S: Randomized controlled trial.Condition being studied: Knee osteoarthritis has become a major public health problem, It could cause knee joint pain, joint instability and dysfunction, and seriously affects the quality of life of patients, The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the better efficacy and safety of warming acupuncture and moxibustion combined with Chinese herb medicine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) so as to provide comprehensive evidence for the selection of the optimal physical therapy regimens in the clinical treatment ofKOA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".