Evaluation of radiation cystitis treatment efficacy with glycosaminoglycan replenishment therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Radiation cystitis is a severe late consequence of radiation therapy of pelvic malignancies. Destruction of glycosaminoglycan’s protective barrier (GAG-layer) plays key role in pathogenesis of radiation cystitis. Hence, GAG-replenishment therapy could be a promised method of treatment the radiation cystitis.The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of glycosaminoglycan replacement therapy of chronic radiation cystitis using bladder instillation. Materials and methods. 23 female patients with radiation cystitis participated in the retrospective study. They have been randomized divided on two groups. Patients of the 1st group have been treated with intravesical administration of 0,08 % sodium hyaluronate alone, 2nd group – with intravesical sodium hyaluronate in combination with oral sodium hyaluronate and chondroitin sulfate.Results. Patients of both groups demonstrated less frequency and pain after treatment as well as increased bladder volume. Intravesical administration of glycosaminoglycans in combination with oral administration was more effective than intravesical therapy alone.Conclusions. GAG-replenishment therapy is a promised treatment options of radiation cystitis. Oral and intravesical GAG-replenishment therapy is more effective in comparison with only intravesical therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".