Salivary status in patients treated for head and neck cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare unstimulated salivary flow rate and residual salivary volume (the volume of saliva retained in the mouth after swallowing) in a group of 23 control subjects and a group of 25 patients who had received radiation treatment or had undergone removal of the salivary glands (or both) for head and neck cancer. As expected, the mean flow rate (+/- 0 standard deviation) in the patient group was significantly less than that in the control group (0.07 +/- 0.11 and 0.45 +/- 0 0.27 mL/min, respectively). However, the mean residual volumes were not significantly different between the 2 groups (0.70 +/- 0 0.28 and 0.82 +/- 0 0.26 mL, respectively). The 25 patients were subdivided according to their self-reported assessment of the mouth as being not dry (3), somewhat dry (12) or very dry (10); mean residual volume of saliva was significantly lower, at 71% the level in control subjects, for the group with very dry mouth (p < 0.02). These results suggest that people who report that the mouth is dry may not have a complete lack of fluid in the mouth; rather, there may be localized areas of dryness, notably on the hard palate, where the salivary film is particularly thin and subject to fluid absorption or evaporation because of mouth breathing.
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".