Clinical efficacy of acupuncture combined with Western medicine in the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: A protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer disease (AD) is a common cause of dementia, and there are still a lack of treatment options to reverse or prevent disease progression. Existing evidence shows that acupuncture has advantages in the treatment of AD, but whether the efficacy of acupuncture belongs to the placebo effect remains controversial, and there is no strict placebo-controlled clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture combined with Western medicine in the treatment of AD. METHODS: This is a prospective randomized, a single-blind, sham-acupuncture controlled trial to study the clinical efficacy of acupuncture combined with Western medicine in the treatment of mild to moderate AD. Participants will be randomly divided into treatment and control groups. The treatment group using acupuncture combined with donepezil hydrochloride orally, and the control group using sham acupuncture combined with donepezil hydrochloride orally, followed up for 24 weeks after 24 weeks of continuous treatment. Outcome measures included: AD assessment scale-cognitive subscale, mini-mental state examination, activities of daily living, neuropsychiatric inventory questionnaire, serum superoxide dismutase, and homocysteine levels. Finally, SPASS 21.0 software was used for statistical analysis of the data. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture combined with Western medicine in improving cognitive function and activities of daily living in AD patients. The results of this study will verify whether the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of AD belongs to the placebo effect, which will also provide a reference for the clinical use of acupuncture combined with Western medicine in the treatment of AD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The TCTR identification number is TCTR20220817004.
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 | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".