Risks and benefits of antioxidant dietary supplement use during cancer treatment: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Antioxidant dietary supplements are used by many patients with cancer to reduce the side effects of chemotherapy and improve prognosis. While some research indicates oral antioxidant supplementation reduces side effects and improves patient survival, other studies suggest the use of antioxidant dietary supplements may interfere with chemotherapy and reduce its curative effects. There is a need to clarify the evidence base on the impact of dietary antioxidant supplementation during chemotherapy on both side effect and treatment efficacy outcomes. We will use a scoping review approach to identify what systematic review evidence exists regarding beneficial and harmful effects of dietary antioxidant supplements when used during cancer treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use Arksey & O'Malley and Joanna Briggs Institute methods for scoping reviews. We will systematically search PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Dissertations & Theses Global and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2020. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of oral dietary antioxidant supplements used by participants receiving curative chemotherapy, radiotherapy or other biological therapy for cancer will be eligible. Two reviewers will screen citations and full texts for inclusion and chart data on research questions from included reviews. Two reviewers will assess the overall confidence in systematic review results using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2), and summarised evidence will focus on reviews rated at high or moderate overall confidence. Tables will be used to map existing evidence and identify evidence gaps for safety and effectiveness outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethical approval as it is a secondary assessment of available literature. The results will be presented at conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We will also disseminate results to community and clinical stakeholders and involve them in developing subsequent research to address critical existing gaps in the evidence as identified by the scoping review.
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 | 0.082 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.016 |
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".