Topical Management of Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of topical corticosteroids in managing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in female breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to and including March 2017 to identify Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) assessing topical corticosteroids for the management and prevention of acute RD. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (919 participants) were identified. Meta-analysis, including results for 845 participants, demonstrated significant benefits of topical corticosteroids in preventing the incidence of wet desquamation (OR: 0.29; 95%CI: 0.19-0.45; p<0.0001) and reducing the mean RD score (SMD: -0.47, 95%CI: -0.61 - -0.33, p<0.00001). CONCLUSION: Topical corticosteroids impacted on the incidence of wet desquamation and the average RD score observed in female breast cancer patients. The use of topical corticosteroids can reduce pruritus in participants and improve quality of 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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".