Comparison of the Effect of Fish Oil and Vitamin E on the Severity of Cyclic Mastalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: One of the most common complaints in women is mastalgia and use of vitamin E is one of the common treatments. Considering the benefits of fish oil and similarity of its mechanisms with vitamin E, this study was performed with purpose of comparing the effects of fish oil and vitamin E on the severity of cyclic mastalgia. Methods: In a double blind clinical trial, 70 women 15 to 49 years with cyclical mastalgia who referred to three clinics in Mashhad city were randomly divided into two groups (35 cases in each group). Fish oil 3 g/day was given to one group and vitamin E 400 IU/day to other group for a period of two months. Severity of cyclic mastalgia was assessed by visual analogue scale and McGill pain questionnaire before intervention and one and two months after treatment. Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 11.5) and Chi-square test, pair t-test, independent t-test and repeated measures ANOVA. P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Mean scores of McGill pain questionnaire and mean scores of pain severity using visual analogue scale has decreased before and after intervention in both groups (p 0.05). Conclusion: Satisfaction of taking fish oil in reducing the severity of cyclic mastalgia is more than vitamin E, also fish oil and vitamin E have similar therapeutic effects and could be used as therapeutic alternatives in the treatment of cyclic mastalgia.
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) | 0.002 | 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".