Clinical effect and safety analysis of long-round needle usage in treating cervical spondylotic radiotelegraphy and its effect on pain and functional recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-round needle usage can treat muscular pain, but there is little research on cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy and safety of long-round needle usage in treating CSR. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients with CSR were randomly divided into control and observation groups. They were treated with filiform needles and long-round needles, respectively. The therapeutic effect, safety, inflammatory factors and neck dysfunction index (NDI), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) and Generic Quality of Life Inventory-74 (GQOL-74) scores were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: After treatment, the effective rate and safety of the observation group were better than those of the control group. The NDI and MPQ scores in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group, and the GQOL-74 score was higher than that in the control group. The level of interleukin-8 in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the level of interleukin-10 was significantly higher than that in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-round needle therapy has a good effect on patients with CSR, which can safely improve the quality of life of patients with mild local inflammatory damage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".