MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096783311

Research Article Auricular Acupressure Combined with an Internet-Based Intervention or Alone for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Control Study

2015· article· en· W7096783311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcupressureVisual analogue scaleDistressIntervention (counseling)MassageResearch designMcGill Pain QuestionnaireAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copyright © 2013 Mei-Ling Yeh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background. Primary dysmenorrhea is prevalent in adolescents and young women. Menstrual pain and distress causes poor school performance and physiological damage. Auricular acupressure can be used to treat these symptoms, and Internet-based systems are a flexible way of communicating and delivering the relevant information. Objective. This study investigates the effects of auricular acupressure (AA) alone and combined with an interactive Internet-based (II) intervention for the management of menstrual pain and self-care of adolescents with primary dysmenorrhea. Design. This study adopts a pretest/posttest control research design with a convenience sample of 107 participants. Results. The outcomes were measured using the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), visual analogue scale (VAS), menstrual distress questionnaire (MDQ), and adolescent dysmenorrheic self-care scale (ADSCS). Significant differences were found in ADSCS scores between the groups, and in SF-MPQ, VAS, MDQ, and ADSCS scores for each group. Conclusion. Auricular acupressure alone and a combination of auricular acupressure and interactive Internet

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207