Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的：观察推拿、牵引、理疗与健康教育综合治疗高校学生颈型颈椎病的疗效.方法：将64名高校学生颈型颈椎病患者随机分为治疗组和对照组各32名,治疗组予推拿、牵引、理疗与健康教育综合治疗,对照组予口服布洛芬缓释胶囊及外敷关节止痛膏治疗.两组均治疗5d为1个疗程,2个疗程后观察两组的疼痛McGill评分（short form of McGill Pain Questionnaire,SF-MPQ）、颈部症状与体征评分变化,并评价临床疗效.治疗结束6个月后随访观察复发情况.结果：两组各有2例病例脱落;两组疼痛SF-MPQ评分、颈部症状与体征评分均较治疗前明显降低（P＜0.05）,治疗组比较对照组降低更明显.治疗组总有效率优于对照组（P＜0.01）,且复发率低于对照组（P＜0.01）.结论：采用推拿、牵引、理疗与健康教育综合治疗高校学生颈型颈椎病疗效满意.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.097 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".