Integrating Acupuncture and Yoga for Pain Management in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and debilitating condition. We explore the potential of a multimodal intervention for managing knee OA, combining naturopathic therapies, acupuncture, yoga, and resistance exercise. Case description: A 68-year-old male presented with a one-year Grade II knee OA history. The patient reported moderate pain and reduced joint mobility, impacting daily activities. Clinical Findings: Initial assessment revealed a Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score of 31 and a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score of 5. Intervention: We provided a protocol to the patient that combined traditional naturopathic treatments, mud and mustard compresses, with evidence-based therapies, acupuncture, and resistance exercise. These modalities were chosen to address the multifaceted symptoms of knee OA, focusing on symptomatic relief and functional improvement. Results: The patient improved functional ability and decreased pain perception. WOMAC scores decreased by 26%, reflecting a notable reduction in OA severity. VAS pain scores decreased by 40%, indicating a substantial reduction in perceived pain intensity. The patient reported improved performance in daily activities, suggesting enhanced functional capacity. They also experienced weight loss and lower blood pressure, potentially contributing to overall well-being and influencing pain management and functional capabilities. Conclusions: The potential benefits of a multifaceted approach to managing knee OA were effective. The decrease in pain perception, improvements in functional ability, and even secondary outcomes like weight loss and blood pressure suggest the potential value of exploring such integrative strategies for improved patient outcomes and enhanced well-being in individuals with knee OA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".