USING OF CUPPING TECHNIQUE AS A THERAPEUTIC MODEL IN TREATMENT OF NON-DISCOGENIC LOW BACK PAIN
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cupping therapy is one of the traditional medical technologies practiced for thousands of years. it might have some additional benefits on early rehabilitation for post-stroke complications. Aim of the work: to examine if the use of cupping technique as a therapeutic model in treatment of discogenic low back pain has a significant impact or not. Methodology: 60 Patients divided into two equal groups were participated in this study: Group 1 treated by conventional post-stroke therapy and Group 2 treated by wet cupping in addition to conventional post-stroke therapy. The national institute of health stroke scale (NIHSS) index was sed as patients assessment tool for neurologic deficit evaluation motor functions is assessed by the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) scale, the healing process depended on the bedside swallowing assessment (BSA). For cognitive function, the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) have been used, and any undesirable effect of wet cupping were noted for safety evaluation. Results: Better results have been documented with wet cupping therapy. Statistically significant improvement in pain reduction for both techniques of cupping (dry & wet) when compared to conventional medical therapy without augmentation with cupping therapy. Conclusion:Significant Effect of Hijama (Wet cupping) in post-stroke rehabilitation.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it