Discrepancy of the Effects of Zinc Supplementation on the Prevention of Radiotherapy-Induced Mucositis Between Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma and Those With Oral Cancers: Subgroup Analysis of a Double-Blind, Randomized 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
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of zinc supplementation on radiation-induced mucositis in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and those with oral cancers (OC). A total of 100 patients with head and neck cancers engaged in a randomized double blind study. All participants were placed into two randomized groups (experimental and control). The experimental group received a standard dose of zinc supplements, and the control group was given a placebo. Subgroup analyses were performed between 40 NPC and 43 OC patients. It was found that patients with OC in the control group developed Grade 2 and Grade 3 mucositis sooner than those in the experimental group. However, the benefits were not found to extend to patients with NPC. The results indicated that zinc supplementation prescribed in conjunction with radiotherapy postponed the development of severe mucositis solely for patients with OC. The pretreatment oral mucosa condition and areca chewing habit might account for such discrepancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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