21st Brazilian Diabetes Society Congress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acupuncture is a widely used technique for the treatment of diabetes in Asian countries. Nevertheless, there are few studies with appropriate methodological rigor evaluating its effectiveness and promoting a standardized procedure in the western world. The FreeStyle libre glucose monitoring system has specific characteristics, being diverse from the traditional monitoring methods. It does not require finger prick and identifies glucose variations, especially nocturnal hypoglycemia. Objectives: Evaluate the short-term effect of acupuncture in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) using the FreeStyle libre system. Method: In a randomized, controlled, prospective, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 20 insulin independent DM2 patients to undergo acupuncture (group 1) or in the control group (group 2). Participants should be between 20 and 75 years old, diagnosed with DM2 for at least 3 years, and with stable glycemic control (evaluated through glycated hemoglobin). Patients should not be in use of glucocorticoids or insulin, be pregnant or have record of nephrotic syndrome, hepatic insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, acromegaly or renal insufficiency. Demographic data, baseline characteristics, biochemical and metabolic profiles were analyzed before the intervention. Participants underwent continuous glucose monitoring for 14 days, period in which they did not change diet, exercise or medication. Group 1 received acupuncture 4, 8 and 12 days after installation of the monitoring system. The acupuncture treatment promotes energetic rebalance and, in this study, diabetes-specific treatment points were used in all patients (B38, IG4, R24, E36 e BP9). This trial was approved by the ethics committee (CAAE-60576616.6.0000.5572) and registered at Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (UTN) is U1111-1199-9630. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the baseline characteristics (Table In group 1, mean glucose level obtained through 14 days monitoring after acupuncture treatment was 143 28,8 mg/dl, whilst in group 2, who did not undergo acupuncture, the mean level was 165.8 30.2 mg/dl (p-0.015) (Fig.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.186 | 0.116 |
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".