[Clinical observation of acupotomy combined with warm needling for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy of qi and blood stagnation syndrome].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: and blood stagnation syndrome. METHODS: A total of 90 CSR patients were randomly divided into an acupotomy group, a warm needling group and a combined treatment group, with 30 cases in each group. The patients in the acupotomy group were treated with acupotomy, once every 7 days, consecutively for 3 times. The patients in the warm needling group received warm needling, once daily, at the interval of 2 days after consecutive treatments for 5 days, 7 days as one session of treatment and 3 consecutive sessions were required. The patients in the combined treatment group were treated with acupotomy and warm needling, and the methods and the treatment session were same as the the previous two groups. Before and after the treatment, the pain rating index (PRI) of McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) and the 20-point scale of CSR developed by Yasuhisa Tanaka (CSR20) were adopted in the assessment. The changes of clinical symptoms and functions of patients were observed and the clinical efficacy was assessed in each group. RESULTS: <0.05). CONCLUSION: and blood stagnation syndrome. Its efficacy is remarkably higher than that of the simple application of acupotomy or warm needling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".