Icing oral mucositis: Oral cryotherapy in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Up to 70% of patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplant develop oral mucositis as a side effect of high-dose melphalan conditioning chemotherapy. Oral cryotherapy has been documented to be potentially effective in reducing oral mucositis. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the cryotherapy protocol implemented within the hematopoietic stem cell transplant program. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of adult multiple myeloma patients who received high-dose melphalan conditioning therapy for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Primary endpoints were incidence and severity of oral mucositis. Secondary endpoints included duration of oral mucositis, duration of hospital stay, parenteral narcotics use and total parenteral nutrition use. Results One hundred and forty patients were included in the study, 70 patients in both no cryotherapy and cryotherapy groups. Both oral mucositis incidence and severity were found to be significantly lower in the cryotherapy group. Fifty (71.4%) experienced mucositis post cryotherapy compared to 67 (95.7%) in the no cryotherapy group (p < 0.001). The median oral mucositis severity, assessed using the WHO oral toxicity scale from grade 0-4, experienced in the no group was 2.5 vs. 2 in the cryotherapy group (p = 0.03). Oral mucositis duration and use of parenteral narcotics were also significantly reduced. Duration of hospital stay and use of parenteral nutrition were similar between the two groups. Conclusion The cryotherapy protocol resulted in a significantly lower incidence and severity of oral mucositis. These results provide evidence for the continued use of oral cryotherapy, an inexpensive and generally well-tolerated practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".