Tolerability of the combination of ginger ( <i>Zingiber officinalis</i> ), gentian ( <i>Gentiana lutea</i> ) and turmeric ( <i>Curcuma longa</i> ) in patients with cancer-associated anorexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anorexia is a common symptom for patients with advanced cancer. Gentian, ginger, and turmeric have traditionally been used to stimulate appetite. We tested these agents in combination, in a pilot study to assess tolerability in patients indicating 4/10 or worse anorexia on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, and who were not currently on chemotherapy. We collected exploratory data on the patient's appetite using a visual analogue scale. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, 17 patients were enrolled in arm 1 (turmeric 1 g and ginger 1 g orally twice daily, and gentiana lutea tincture 1 mL three times a day, for 14 days). The three patients enrolled in arm 2 received the same doses of ginger and turmeric but no gentian. All patients completed a daily appetite diary and a weekly symptom assessment. RESULTS: In arm 1, seven patients (41%) completed treatment. Seven patients (41%) stopped early because of unacceptable toxicity or patient-initiated discontinuation, and 3 stopped because of other reasons. All patients in arm 2 stopped taking the study medication within few days of starting the treatment, leading the study committee to recommend stopping the trial. The most common adverse effects attributed to study drugs were nausea (6 patients), vomiting (3), fatigue (3), diarrhea (2) and bloating (2). There was no statistically significant effect seen on appetite. CONCLUSIONS: At the doses used in this study, the combination of ginger, turmeric, and gentian is not tolerated well in cancer patients. Future studies should use fewer agents or lower doses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".