Effects of thumb‐tack needling combined with sporting on older adult patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized active‐control clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this clinical study was to explore the effects of thumb-tack needling combined with sporting (TTNS) therapy on the improvement of pain and joint function in older adult patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: A total of 120 older adult patients with KOA were randomly assigned to receive TTNS therapy or medicine treatment (Med group) only for 1 month. The patients were followed up for 3 months and clinical efficacies were evaluated using a visual analog scale to assess pain, the Lequesne scoring system to assess motor function, and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index to assess KOA severity. Blood was collected to measure the levels of interleukin-6 and tumor necrotic factor-alpha using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: The data suggested that TTNS therapy resulted in a significantly higher clinical efficacy (P = 0.012). Visual analog scale score, Lequesne index, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index of the TTNS group at the time of post-treatment (1 month) and post-follow-up (3 months) were also lower compared with the Med group. Patients in the TTNS group also showed lower levels of serum tumor necrotic factor-alpha and interleukin-6. CONCLUSIONS: TTNS therapy is more efficacious than pharmacological treatment in improving the clinical outcomes of patients with KOA, which suggests its clinical utility in the management of KOA. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024; 24: 415-420.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".