The efficacy and safety of electro-acupuncture for alleviating chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in colorectal cancer patients: study protocol for a pilot single-blinded, randomized sham-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Colorectal cancer is the most common cancer in Hong Kong. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is a major first-line conventional therapy for advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer. However, oxaliplatin causes chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Acupuncture has long been used to alleviate limb numbness in Chinese Medicine Practice. This pilot study aims to examine the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for alleviating CIPN in colorectal cancer patients in Hong Kong. Methods/Design: This is a pilot single-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Eighty-four eligible patients, who are Hong Kong Chinese aged ≥18 years diagnosed with colorectal cancer and undergoing oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, will be randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to electro-acupuncture group and sham-controlled group. During a 12-week treatment period, patients in electro-acupuncture group will undergo electro-acupuncture once a week from the first cycle of chemotherapy, patients in control group will receive sham-acupuncture, and the patients in both groups will be followed up for twelve weeks. The primary outcome measure is the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOC-Ntx) questionnaire. The secondary outcome measures include numerical rating scale (NRS) for numbness/pain, vibration and light touch sense test, quality of life questionnaire-C30 of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Constitution of Chinese Medicine Questionnaire (CCMQ). Discussion: The study will compare electro-acupuncture with sham acupuncture to explore the feasibility for electro-acupuncture in improving symptoms caused by chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".