Effect of Fish Oil on Appetite and Other Symptoms in Patients With Advanced Cancer and Anorexia/Cachexia: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled 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 determine whether high doses of fish oil, administered over 2 weeks, improve symptoms in patients with advanced cancer and decreased weight and appetite. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to fish oil capsules or placebo. Appetite, tiredness, nausea, well-being, caloric intake, nutritional status, and function were prospectively assessed at days 1 and 14. RESULTS: The baseline weight loss was 16 +/- 11 and 16 +/- 8 kg in the fish oil (n = 30) and placebo (n = 30) group respectively, whereas the baseline appetite (0 mm = best and 10 mm = worst) was 58 +/- 24 mm and 67 +/- 19 mm, respectively (P = not significant). The mean daily dose was 10 +/- 4 (fish oil group) and 9 +/- 3 (placebo group) capsules, which provided 1.8 g of eicosapentaenoic acid and 1.2 g of docosahexaenoic acid in the fish oil group. No significant differences in symptomatic or nutritional parameters were found (P <.05), and there was no correlation between changes in different variables between days 1 and 14 and the fish oil doses. Finally, the majority of the patients were not able to swallow more than 10 fish oil capsules per day, mainly because of burping and aftertaste. CONCLUSION: Fish oil did not significantly influence appetite, tiredness, nausea, well-being, caloric intake, nutritional status, or function after 2 weeks compared with placebo in patients with advanced cancer and loss of both weight and appetite.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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