Phase III randomized study: Oral pilocarpine versus submandibular salivary gland transfer protocol for the management of radiation‐induced xerostomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Xerostomia is a serious morbidity of radiation treatment in head and neck cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective phase III multicenter randomized study comparing submandibular salivary gland transfer (SGT) procedure with pilocarpine during and for 3 months after XRT. Salivary flow (baseline, stimulated) and University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (U of W QOL) scores were measured. RESULTS.: An interim intent to treat analysis (120 patients) at 6 months shows superior results in SGT arm: median baseline salivary flow for SGT (0.04 mL/minute) versus pilocarpine (0.01 mL/minute), p = .001; median stimulated salivary flow (0.18 mL/minute) for SGT versus (0.05 mL/minute) for pilocarpine, p = .003. Scores (U of W QOL) for amount (p = .017) and consistency of saliva (p = .005) in favor of SGT leading to premature closure of study. CONCLUSIONS: Submandibular SGT procedure is superior to pilocarpine in management of radiation-induced xerostomia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".