Abstract P2-12-15: Efficacy of Lymphdiaral™ in breast cancer patients with lymphedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Lymphedema has been a prevalent and often severe side effect for patients receiving treatment for breast cancer typically resulting in physical and psychosocial distress as well as decreased quality of life. With no widely effective or safe drug treatment(s) for lymphedema, this study aimed to assess the efficacy of combined Lymphdiaral™ drops and ointment for treatment-related lymphedema. Methods: This open label, randomized, parallel-group trial ran over 12 weeks with a final follow-up visit at 24 weeks. One hundred and thirty-four (n = 134) patients were consented to the study. Of these, 119 patients were randomized to either standard care group (compression garment) or treatment group (compression garment plus Lymphdiaral™ drops and ointment) and follow-up data was obtained. The primary objective was the reduction in lymphedema as measured by change in arm volume. Results: The values for the arm volumes did not show a statistically significant decrease in both the standard care or treatment groups. Additionally, there was no statistical difference in arm volume reduction between the groups. Conclusions: This first randomized trial shows, that the homeopathic drug combination of Lymphdiaral™ drops and ointment does not improve lymphedema in breast cancer patients. Citation Format: Jawaid Younus, Morgan Black, Lyn Kligman, Brenda Leung. Efficacy of Lymphdiaral™ in breast cancer patients with lymphedema [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-15.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".