New smokeless moxibustion for knee osteoarthritis: A study protocol for a multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic inflammatory disease with high morbidity and disability. As the aging and obese population increase, so will the medical services for this disease. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of herbal activated carbon smokeless moxibustion and traditional moxibustion in the treatment of KOA and to determine the clinical efficacy of herbal activated carbon smokeless moxibustion in the treatment of KOA. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter, two parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Eighty-eight subjects with KOA (Kellgren Lawrence grade II or III) will be recruited and randomly treated with smokeless moxibustion or traditional moxibustion in the ratio of 1:1. The smokeless moxibustion group will use plant herbal activated carbon smokeless moxa cone. The traditional moxibustion group will be treated with pure moxa cone. Subjects in both groups will receive treatment at the affected knee(s) at the acupuncture point ST35, EX-LE2, and EX-LE4. Subjects in both groups will receive 3 sessions per week of moxibustion for 4 weeks. The primary outcome are changes in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain scores from baseline to week 24. Secondary outcomes include visual analog scale, 50 yards fast walking time, short-form heath survey 36, overall clinical efficacy evaluation, self-assessment of safety, treatment credibility and expectancy, and cytokines related to osteoarthritis in serum. DISCUSSION: This randomized single-blind controlled trial takes traditional moxibustion as the control group to provide strict evidence for the clinical efficacy and safety of herbal activated carbon smokeless moxibustion in the treatment of KOA.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".