Dexamethasone for the Prophylaxis of Radiation-Induced Emesis: A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Phase III Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic for patients receiving fractionated radiotherapy to the upper abdomen in a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-four patients planned to receive fractionated radiotherapy to fields involving the upper abdomen (minimum total dose, 20 Gy; minimum number of fractions, five) were randomized to receive prophylactic dexamethasone (2 mg orally three times a day [tid], starting in the morning of first treatment and continuing until after their fifth treatment) or placebo. The primary end point of the study was the proportion of patients free from emesis during the study period. Secondary end points included a quality-of-life assessment using the core questionnaire of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and side effects of dexamethasone therapy in this population of patients. RESULTS: Fifty-four (70%) out of 75 patients receiving dexamethasone had complete protection versus 37 (49%) out of 75 patients on placebo (P = .025). Most emetic episodes occurred during the initial phase of treatment. Although there was no difference in global quality of life between the two sets of patients, patients receiving dexamethasone had less nausea and vomiting and less loss of appetite but more insomnia. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone 2 mg tid seems to be an effective prophylactic antiemetic in this situation. Side effects were acceptable, but there seemed to be no overall effect on global 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.
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 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it