MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995073502 · doi:10.1002/hed.10044

A pilot study evaluating the safety and microbiologic efficacy of an economically viable antimicrobial lozenge in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiation therapy

2001· article· en· W1995073502 on OpenAlexaff
Samy El‐Sayed, Joel B. Epstein, Erin Minish, Patricia Burns, John Hay, Ethan Laukkanen

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsWindsor Regional HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare ManitobaOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMucositisLozengeMedicineRadiation therapyHead and neck cancerCancerSurgeryStomatitisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mucositis occurs in almost all radiotherapy-treated head and neck cancer patients, in approximately 75% of patients receiving hematopoietic marrow transplantation, and in approximately 40% of all patients who receive chemotherapy. Mucositis is painful, may affect all oral functions, and is a dose- and rate-limiting toxicity of therapy for cancer. Radiation-associated mucositis (onset, intensity, and duration) has been shown in recent clinical trials to be modified by the use of antibacterial/antifungal lozenges. PURPOSE: The aim of this collaborative two-center phase II study was to assess the toxicity and microbiologic efficacy of an economically viable antimicrobial lozenge in the management of patients receiving radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients scheduled to receive radical or postoperative radiotherapy were provided with bacitracin, clotrimazole, and gentamicin (BCoG) lozenges (one lozenge dissolved in the mouth qid from day 1 of radiotherapy until completion). Ease of use and palatability of the lozenges, patients' symptoms (swallowing and pain), and quantitative and qualitative microbiologic evaluation of an oral rinse collection was conducted at least once weekly during radiation therapy. RESULTS: No significant side effects were reported from the use of the lozenges. The lozenges were well tolerated at the beginning of treatment by all patients, with some minor difficulty associated with oral discomfort toward the end of the treatment. Microbiologic evaluation showed consistent elimination of yeast organisms in all patients. In four patients there was no growth of gram-negative bacilli on culture, whereas in two patients, fluctuating counts were seen, and one patient had increased counts. The remaining patients had significant reduction in the gram-negative bacilli counts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the BCoG lozenge is tolerable and microbiologically efficacious, achieving elimination of Candida in all patients and reduction in gram-negative flora in most patients. A phase III study is underway to evaluate the clinical efficacy of this lozenge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207