Application of eggs lining treatment in concurrent chemotherapy oral ulceration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the eggs lining treatment effect of concurrent chemotherapy oral ulceration and comfort.Methods 42 cases chemotherapy concurrent oral ulcer patient then divided into the observation group 21 cases and control 21 patients.In other therapy and nursing measures under the same conditions,the observation group patients with eggs endometrial topical ulcer surface,every 2~3 days,if have replaced every fall change at any time.The control group conventional intention stuck topical.Before and after treatment by anxiety self-assessment respectively McGill watch(SAS) and pain intensity index(PPI) assess client's mental state and comfort,7 days compared between the two groups of patients oral ulcer healing and comfort.Results The observation group patients total effective oral ulceration treatment for 95%,higher than those in the control group(86%);The observation group patients significantly higher than the control group.Comparisons of two groups comfort were statistically significant(P0.01).Conclusions Eggs lining is good for treatment of oral cavity ulcer in concurrent chemotherapy,especially in the comfort,which can improve the quality of the patients' life.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".