Integrative medicine in patients with degenerative arthritis of the knee: A pilot randomized control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to comparatively analyze the effect of integrative medicine treatments (lifestyle change education, use of anti-inflammatory drugs, acupuncture, manual therapy-type massage) and conventional medical treatments (lifestyle change education and use of anti-inflammatory drugs) on pain control, knee function improvement, and quality of life improvement in patients with degenerative knee arthritis. METHODS: In this study, 30 patients were randomly divided into the control group (n = 15) and the experimental group (n = 15). Both groups were prescribed anti-inflammatory drugs and lifestyle change education for 12 weeks. The experimental group underwent acupuncture including electroacupuncture, moxibustion, and manual therapy-type massage 12 times during the first 6 weeks. Evaluations were performed at 3 visits: visit 1 (before treatment), visit 2 (6 weeks after initial treatment), and visit 3 (12 weeks after initial treatment). The effect of each treatment was measured using Visual Analog Scale (VAS, 0-10), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index (WOMAC), and SF-36. RESULTS: From visit 1 to visit 2, the mean value of VAS decreased by 0.72 and 3.17 in the control and experimental groups, respectively. From visit 2 to visit 3, the mean VAS value decreased by 0.25 in the control group but increased by 0.87 in the experimental group. Among the sub-area of SF-36, the physical role restriction area and mental health area showed significant differences between the 2 groups over time (P = .024, P = .006). CONCLUSION: Integrative medicine treatment has superior effects in pain control over conventional medical treatment. In integrative medicine treatment, pain control tends to decrease with time, but still superior over conventional medical treatment up to 6 weeks after treatment (12 weeks after initial treatment).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".