Vitamin E and evening primrose oil for management of cyclical mastalgia: a randomized pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of vitamin E, evening primrose oil (EPO), and the combination of vitamin E and EPO for pain control in women with cyclical mastalgia. PROCEDURE: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two U.S. academic medical centers. Eighty-five women with premenstrual cyclical breast discomfort were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four six-month oral treatments: vitamin E (1,200 IU per day), EPO (3,000 mg per day), vitamin E (1,200 IU per day) plus EPO (3,000 mg per day), or double placebo. The primary outcome measure was change in breast pain, measured by the modified McGill Pain Questionnaire at enrollment and at six months. RESULTS: Forty-one patients completed the study. Intent-to-treat analysis (pretesting and post testing) showed a difference in worst-pain improvement with the treatments EPO (p=0.005), vitamin E (p=0.04), and EPO plus vitamin E (p=0.05), but no difference with placebo (p=0.93). Results from two-sample t-test showed a nonsignificant decrease in cyclical mastalgia individually for the three treatment groups compared with the placebo group (EPO, p=0.18; vitamin E, p=0.10; and EPO plus vitamin E, p=0.16). The data were also analyzed with the separation test by Aickin, which showed a trend toward a reduction of cyclical mastalgia with vitamin E and EPO individually and in combination. CONCLUSION: Daily doses of 1,200 IU vitamin E, 3,000 mg EPO, or vitamin E and EPO in combination at these same dosages taken for six months may decrease the severity of cyclical mastalgia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".