Effect of Soy Phytoestrogens on Hot Flashes in Postmenopausal Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flashes and night sweats, in breast cancer survivors are often worsened by chemotherapy and tamoxifen, and/or the discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy at diagnosis. This study evaluated the acceptability and effectiveness of a soy beverage containing phytoestrogens as a treatment for hot flashes in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted in postmenopausal women with moderate hot flashes who were previously treated for early-stage breast cancer. Women were stratified for tamoxifen use and randomized to a soy beverage (n = 59) containing 90 mg of isoflavones or to a placebo rice beverage (n = 64). Women recorded the number and severity of hot flashes daily with a daily menopause diary for 4 weeks at baseline and for 12 weeks while consuming 500 mL of a soy or placebo beverage. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the soy and placebo groups in the number of hot flashes or hot flash scores. However, presumably because of a strong placebo effect, both groups had significant reductions in hot flashes. Mild gastrointestinal side effects were experienced by both groups but occurred with greater frequency and severity with soy. The mean serum genistein concentration at 6 weeks was significantly higher in women who consumed soy (0.61 +/- 0.43 micromol/L) compared with placebo (0.43 +/- 0.37 micromol/L) (P =.02). Overall acceptability and compliance were high and similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The soy beverage did not alleviate hot flashes in women with breast cancer any more than did a placebo. Future research into other compounds is recommended to identify safe and effective therapies for hot flashes in breast cancer survivors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".