A Single Blinded Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial on the Efficacy of Ozone Therapy on Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ozone therapy in breast cancer-related Lymphedema (BCRL). Methods: Sixty patients with BCRL were participated in this study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Ozone group received ozone therapy in addition to complex physical therapy for lymphedema consisted of pressure garment, remedial exercise, and skin care, while the control group received complex physical therapy only. Limb volume was measured using water displacement and limb circumference. Skin and subcutaneous thickness were measured using Doppler ultrasound. All measurements were carried out at baseline (0wk) and after 12 weeks (12wk) of intervention. Results: The clinical and demographic characteristics of both groups were comparable at baseline. The reduction of limb volume tended to decline in both groups. The trend was more significantly pronounced in ozone group than control at 12 wk (P < 0.05). There was significant reduction in skin and subcutis thickness in both groups. The rate of thickness reduction was more observable in the ozone group than the control group. Conclusion: Ozone therapy was found to be an effective adjunctive modality for reducing limb volume and thickness in the women with BCRL.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".