Assessment of the use of sialogogues in the clinical management of patients with xerostomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of pilocarpine, bethanechol and cevimeline in patients with xerostomia. In this open-label crossover assessment in 20 patients with xerostomia, a one- to two-week course of each medication with a one-week washout period was prescribed. Side effects, symptoms, whole stimulated and unstimulated saliva were measured. Each sialogogue was found to increase saliva and decrease symptoms. A mixed-effects analysis showed a greater increase in stimulated saliva on bethanechol compared to pilocarpine (0.106, p = 0.0272). Increased sweating was the most common side effect, experienced more frequently with pilocarpine as compared to bethanechol (p = 0.0588) or cevimeline (p = 0.0143). A carryover effect beyond the washout period was seen. Effects on saliva and side effects vary between sialogogues, suggesting a benefit of trials with different sialogogues to determine individual patient preference. The observed carryover effect suggests that intermittent treatment may be an alternative to continuous treatment with sialogogues.
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) | 0.000 | 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".