[Moxibustion at different temperatures for cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To observe the effects of moxibustion at different temperatures on cognitive function and blood glucose levels in patients with cognitive impairment associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: A total of 66 T2DM patients with cognitive impairment were randomly assigned to a high-temperature group (22 cases, 1 case dropped out, 1 case was eliminated), a medium-temperature group (22 cases, 2 cases were eliminated), and a low-temperature group (22 cases, 2 cases were eliminated). All groups received moxibustion at Baihui (GV20), Dazhui (GV14), and Shenting (GV24) based on their existing glycemic control treatment. Moxibustion temperatures were maintained at 44-46 ℃ (high-temperature group), 41-43 ℃ (medium-temperature group), and 38-40 ℃ (low-temperature group), respectively, for 20 min per session, every other day, 3 times a week for 3 months. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) score, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, short-term memory (STM) accuracy and average reaction time, Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) score, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were assessed before and after treatment. Clinical efficacy was evaluated after treatment. Results: <0.05). Conclusion: Moxibustion at different temperatures has a dose-effect relationship in treating cognitive impairment in T2DM patients. A temperature range of 44-46 ℃ is more effective in improving cognitive function and stabilizing average blood glucose levels over 2-3 months.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".