ArticleIntegrative medicine research2026
A new framework for acupoint specificity: Advancing acupuncture studies using the double-dissociation model.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acupoints as Neuromodulation Interfaces: Translating Classical Body Maps into Neural Circuit Science.Brain sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acupoint specificity is a central concept in traditional acupuncture theory but remains controversial in modern scientific studies. Methodological inconsistencies and a predominant reliance on single-dissociation approaches have contributed to this uncertainty. Therefore, we propose a double-dissociation research framework designed to rigorously test the functional specificity of two commonly used acupoints. This model applies double-dissociation methodology to provide stronger causal inferences regarding acupoint-specific effects, where dissociation refers to a pattern in which each acupoint preferentially modulates one physiological domain relative to another. The framework contrasts two theoretically distinct acupoints, PC6 and ST36, with respect to two physiological outcome domains that are hypothesized to be functionally dissociable. In particular, PC6 is predicted to selectively influence cardiovascular measures, such as blood pressure, whereas ST36 is predicted to selectively influence gastric function. Within this framework, a double dissociation would be demonstrated if PC6 produces greater changes in cardiovascular measures than in gastric indices, whereas ST36 produces greater changes in gastric indices than in cardiovascular measures. Evidence of such crossed selectivity would provide support for functional acupoint specificity. The proposed double-dissociation paradigm can be extended to other clinically relevant acupoints and acupoint combinations, and this proof-of-concept article is aimed at stimulating future empirical studies that formally test acupoint-specific effects using such designs. Demonstrating this crossed selectivity-where each acupoint predominantly affects only its predicted outcome-would provide stronger evidence for the functional specialization of acupuncture points. This methodological approach aims to align acupuncture research more closely with contemporary scientific standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.