Plasma Levels of Retinol in Cancer Patients Supplemented with Retinol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have indicated that plasma levels of retinol are decreased in some cancer patients and that lower levels of retinol could be associated with a poor response to chemotherapy. This pilot study was conducted to determine whether it is possible to increase plasma levels of retinol in cancer patients by supplementation with retinol. Plasma levels of retinol were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography in 46 patients treated with chemotherapy for various malignancies and in 43 control individuals; cancer patients were supplemented orally either with 25,000 or 50,000 IU of retinol daily during up to 3 months. Initial levels of retinol were lower in cancer patients than in the control group; the decrease was significant in women with liver metastases but not in men. Women supplemented with 25,000 IU had a significant increase of their retinol levels after 1 month but this effect was not maintained during continued supplementation; in women receiving 50,000 IU daily, a sustained increase in retinol level was maintained during the 3 months of supplementation. In men, a similar trend was produced by the supplementation but the increases were not significant. Retinol levels decreased to initial levels within 1 month of discontinuation of supplementation, indicating the need for continuous supplementation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".