Evaluation of supportive and barrier-protective skin care products in the daily prevention and treatment of cutaneous toxicity during systemic chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this multicenter, prospective, observational, open-label study was to evaluate the use and tolerability of dermo-cosmetic products in preventing skin reactions associated with cancer treatments. Patients and methods: A 12-product kit was supplied to patients before chemotherapy began and was to be used throughout the treatment phase. Cutaneous adverse events were evaluated at each treatment session. Physicians evaluated skin reactions (edema, erythema, dryness, desquamation, pigmentation disorders, and cracks) and gave their opinion on the skin benefit for patients at the end of the study. Patients also evaluated the product benefit using the Patient Benefit Index (PBI) questionnaire. Results were analyzed by subgroups of casual and regular users, based on number and frequency of products used. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled in cancer services in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Canada. Mean age was 59 years with 71% being female. Product tolerance on whole body was rated good to excellent for at least 89% of the patients for each product. Aggravated skin reactions during the study were reported more frequently by casual users than regular users (39.5% versus 22%; p =0.029). Similarly, casual users reported more erythema aggravation ( p =0.02) and desquamation ( p =0.03) than regular users. PBI >1 was reported for 95.5% of patients and regular users had significantly higher scores than casual users ( p =0.049). Discussion: Overall, the 12-product kit was very well tolerated, with regular users reporting benefits more frequently than casual users. Results support international recommendations to use appropriate skin care products to minimize the impact of cutaneous reactions associated with chemotherapy. Keywords: dermocosmetic, dermatological toxicity, skin side effect, skin reaction, palliative care
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".