Topical Management of Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it