Role of Oral Glutamine in Prevention and Treatment of Oral Mucositis in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Receiving Chemoradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficiency of glutamine in the prevention & treatment of mucositis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation. Material and Methods: Forty patients of histologically proven head and neck carcinomas undergoing chemoradiation with Conventional Radiation on telecobalt and concurrent Cisplatin were randomised into 2 groups. The study group received oral glutamine solution 2 hours prior to undergoing radiotherapy on all days of treatment. The severity and duration of mucositis were recorded once every week using WHO and RTOG grading system for all patients undergoing treatment. Results: Glutamine lead to a delay in the onset of mucositis. The overall incidence of grade mucositis was significantly low in glutamine arm (22% vs 55%, p= 0.006). On weekly assessments, the incidence of grade mucositis in study arm compared to the control was 0 vs 30%, p=0.02 at 4 weeks, 15.8 vs 45%, p= 0.038 at 5 weeks and 22 vs 70%, p=0.001 at 6 weeks. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of grade 1 and 2 mucositis in both arms. Conclusion: Use of oral glutamine reduces the incidence and duration of oral mucositis and hence helpful in the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis with good compliance and further result in good locoregional control of the disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".