Effects of Sweet Bee Venom Pharmacopuncture Treatment for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This is a case series reporting safety and degree of response to 1 dose level of sweet bee venom pharmacopuncture (SBVP) or melittin as a symptom-control therapy for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). SETTING: All treatments were conducted at the East West Cancer Center (EWCC), Dunsan Oriental Hospital, Daejeon University, Republic of Korea, an institution that uses complementary therapies for cancer patients. METHODS: Five consecutive patients with CIPN were referred to the EWCC from March 20, 2010, to April 10, 2010. Patients with World Health Organization Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (WHO CIPN) grade 2 or more were treated with SBVP for 3 treatment sessions over a 1-week period. Measures of efficacy and safety. Validated Visual Analog System (VAS) pain scale, WHO CIPN grade, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) were compared before and after the 1-week course of treatment. To ensure the safety of SBVP, pretreatment skin response tests were given to patients to avoid any potential anaphylactic adverse effects. All patients were closely examined for any allergenic responses following each treatment session. RESULTS: One patient discontinued treatment after the first session, and 4 patients completed all treatment sessions. Using each patient as their own comparator, marked improvements of VAS, WHO CIPN grade, and physical section scores of FACT-G were seen in 3 patients. Most important, there were no related adverse side effects found. CONCLUSION: This safety results of the SBVP therapy merits further investigations in a larger size trial for it to develop into a potential intervention for managing CIPN symptoms. This study will be extended to a dose-response evaluation to further establish safety and response, prior to a randomized trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".