[Clinical effect of indirect moxibustion with <i>Taiyi</i> moxa stick in treatment of back myofascitis: a randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: moxa stick on pain severity and the quality of life in the patients with back myofascitis, and evaluate its clinical effect and safety. METHODS: points, three times daily. The treatment was delivered consecutively for 2 weeks in the two groups. The scores of visual analogue scale (VAS) and the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ) were recorded before treatment, after 1 and 2 weeks of treatment, and after 4 weeks of treatment completion (follow-up visit) in the two groups separately. The difference value between VAS score after 2 weeks of treatment and that before treatment was taken as the primary outcome. The SF-36 score was observed before treatment, after 2 weeks of treatment and during the follow-up visit, and the safety was evaluated in the two groups. RESULTS: <0.05). No adverse event happened in the two groups. CONCLUSION: moxa stick effectively reduces pain severity and improves the quality of life in the patients with back myofascitis. This therapy presents the superior and persistent effect compared with topical application of diclofenac sodium gel.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".