Effect of Chinese herbal medicine compound on breast hyperplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data supporting the use of Chinese herbal medicine compound (CHMC) on breast hyperplasia (BH) based on the data from previous studies. However, the results are still contradictory. Thus, this study aims to compare the results obtained for effect on case-controlled study (CCS) of CHMC on BH. METHODS: This study will include CCS assessing the effect of CHMC on BH. A literature search will be carried out in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to the present. We will not apply language limitation to any electronic database. Study quality will be evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and statistical analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: This study will summarize the up-to-date evidence to assess the effect of CHMC on BH. CONCLUSION: The results of this study may exert helpful evidence to determine whether CHMC is effective on BH. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:: osf.io/3k8ch.
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) | 0.001 | 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".