A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial of an Investigational Liquid Nutritional Formula in Women with Cyclic Breast Pain Associated with Fibrocystic Breast Changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A randomized, multicenter, controlled double-blind trial was performed in women with cyclic breast pain (mastalgia) associated with fibrocystic breast changes (FBCs) to determine whether a nutritional formula reduced breast pain and/or nodularity. STUDY DESIGN: Women were randomized to receive a specifically designed liquid formulation (n = 93) (1 g gamma-linolenic acid [GLA], 750 μg iodine, and 70 μg selenium) or control formula (n = 95) (without GLA, iodine, and selenium) daily for three cycles. Women recorded breast pain, medications, and menstrual signs daily using interactive voice-response system. Nodularity was determined by physical breast examination. RESULTS: Breast pain scores decreased similarly in the experimental (-32.2%) and control (-33.1%) groups (p = 0.64). Nodularity was reduced in the experimental, but not the control group (p = 0.03). Among women who continued pain medication, the amount was reduced in the experimental group relative to controls (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Women with FBC using the formula containing GLA, iodine, and selenium experienced reduced nodularity and in those women who took over-the-counter breast pain medication, a decrease in the quantity of pain medication was observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".