Functional outcomes related to the prevention of radiation‐induced xerostomia: Oral pilocarpine versus submandibular salivary gland transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Xerostomia has a devastating impact on oral function and quality of life in patients who receive radiation treatment for head and neck cancer. The purpose of this study was to examine functional outcomes related to 2 saliva-sparing treatments: (1) oral pilocarpine during radiotherapy; or (2) the submandibular salivary gland transfer (SGT) before radiotherapy. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients were recruited (SGT = 36; pilocarpine = 33). Speech intelligibility, swallowing outcomes, and quality of life were assessed at 4 points in time (pretreatment, and 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after the pretreatment assessment). RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in speech outcomes; however, significant between-group differences existed in swallowing and quality of life outcomes. In all cases, patients who received the SGT procedure had better swallowing outcomes and quality of life scores than the patients who received oral pilocarpine. CONCLUSION: The SGT should be the treatment of choice between the 2 treatments offered to prevent xerostomia in the present study.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".