Pilot study to investigate the toxicity of Aloe vera gel in the management of radiation induced skin reactions for post-operative primary breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this Phase 2 Breast Skin Care Pilot Study was to compare the acute skin reaction in patients undergoing radiation therapy for early breast cancer who use Aloe vera gel on the irradiated skin, with the acute skin reaction in patients from our earlier study who followed a normal skin care routine. Two secondary objectives were to assess patient compliance with the use of Aloe vera gel and the ease of using two skin toxicity scoring tools. A total of 109 patients undergoing radiotherapy following surgery for breast cancer between October 1997 and February 1998 consented to participate in this study. Each patient applied the Aloe vera gel three times daily to the irradiated area during radiation treatment. Skin reactions were assessed objectively on a weekly basis during radiation using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the Acute Skin Reaction Index (ASRI) skin scoring tools and subjectively by patients. All patients were followed for up to 3 weeks following treatment. The use of Aloe vera gel did not increase the acute skin reactions due to irradiation when compared with the two arms of the previous Phase 1 Breast Skin Care Study. This pilot study demonstrated that patients could safely use Aloe vera gel while undergoing radiation therapy treatments. All patients complied uniformly with the instructions of using the gel during the study. The ASRI skin scoring tool was easier to use and more sensitive in displaying differences in skin reactions in comparison to the RTOG scale.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".