Meta-analysis of Acupuncture Combined with Cognitive Rehabilitation Training in the Treatment of Cognitive Impairment after Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of acupuncture combined with rehabilitation training in the treatment of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI).Chinese and English databases such as CNKI, Wanfang database, CBM, PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials of acupuncture combined with rehabilitation training in the treatment of PSCI.RevMan 5.4 was used to evaluate the quality of the literature and Meta analysis.Publication bias was determined by Egger test and funnel plot.A total of 30 RCTS were included with 2506 participants.The results of Meta-analysis showed that acupuncture combined with rehabilitation training was superior to the single treatment group in improving the effective rate, increasing the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) score and BI index, reducing P300 delay and increasing P300 amplitude.Acupuncture combined with rehabilitation training has significant clinical effect in the treatment of PSCI, and the combination of the two has synergistic effect, and it is worthy of further study and discussion.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".