Observation on curative effect of new Guangxi wax hot compressing Yongquan point for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective:To probe into the curative effect of new Guangxi wax hot compressing Yongquan point for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.Methods:A total of 160 diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients who met the criterion were randomly divided into two groups,80 cases in each,the patients in control group received the routine treatment and nursing,while the patients in observation group received the new Guangxi wax hot compressing Yongquan point of double foot on the basis of routine treatment and nursing,the treatment course was 4 weeks,then to compare the total scores of TCM symptoms,Toronto clinical neuropathy score system(TCSS) score,quality of life and efficacy before and after treatment in both groups.Results:After treatment of 4 weeks,there were statistically significant differences in the total scores of TCM symptoms,TCSS score and each dimension score of quality of life between observation group and those in this group before treatment,those in control group after treatment(P<0.05);the difference of curative effect between both groups was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion:New Guangxi wax hot compressing Yongquan point was simple and had obvious effect,and it could effectively improve the patient's quality of life.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".