Method of injection reflexotherapy for the treatment of chronic tensiontype headache
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: evaluation of the injection reflexotherapy on the pain syndrome and level of anxiety-depression disorders in patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). Material and Methods. An open controlled trial was conducted on 95 patients with CTTH. The patients were divided into 2 groups by a method of adaptive randomization: patients of comparison group received amitriptyline 35-70 mg/day and tolperisone 450mg/day; patients of basic group were assigned to 2-4 courses of injection reflexotherapy by the developed method. The obtained results were assessed on the basis of scores on the Visual Analogous Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results. Patients of both groups had a positive view on the receiving treatment. According to McGill Pain Questionnaire determined both affective and sensory descriptors of pain, with dominated by sensory descriptors. For psychological status, according to Beck Depression Inventory, moderate depressive symptoms were noted in both groups. Prevalence of trait anxiety was determined by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. As a result of the treatment, the intensity of pain by VAS reduced from 5,26±0,87 to 1,7±0,78 points (p<0,05) in the comparison group and from 5,17±0,78to 1,65±0,79 (p<0,05) in the basic group. Improvement of parameters of anxiety and depression were found. Conclusion. As the results show, it is very promising to use injection reflexotherapy in treatment of patients with CTTH.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".