MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207731603 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnab313

Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Brain Stimulation of the Motor Cortex on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients with Breast Cancer

2021· article· en· W3207731603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shereen Mamdouh Kamal, Nayria Mahmoud Elhusseini, Mayada Fawzy Sedik, Mohamad Farouk Mohamad, Eman M. Khedr, Hassan Ibraheem Mohamed Kotb

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNauseaMedicineVomitingTranscranial direct-current stimulationChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingAnesthesiaChemotherapyVisual analogue scaleBreast cancerInternal medicineStimulationCancerAntiemetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an adverse outcome associated with chemotherapy and is sometimes difficult to manage. This study aimed to examine the impact of a single session of transcranial direct current brain stimulation (tDCS; 2 mA) over the motor cortex for 20 minutes before chemotherapy in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized double-blind sham-controlled study. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHOD: Sixty patients with breast cancer who were scheduled for chemotherapy treatment were selected and allocated randomly into two equal groups: a stimulation group and a sham group. tDCS was implemented over the primary motor area (M1) (2 mA) for 20 minutes. Patients' nausea was measured by a cumulative index of nausea, a visual analog scale for nausea (VAS-N), episodes of vomiting, and the Edmonton Symptoms Assessment Scale (ESAS) to assess symptoms like pain, malaise, and sense of well-being. Evaluation was done before stimulation and every 24 hours for 72 hours after the end of infusion of chemotherapy. RESULTS: The tDCS group showed a reduction in the cumulative index of nausea (P < 0.001, F = 50), the VAS-N (P < 0.001, F = 52), the ESAS malaise score (P < 0.001, F = 37.6), and the sense of well-being score (P < 0.001, F = 25) vs the sham group. Six patients (20%) in the tDCS group required rescue antiemtic therapy vs 14 patients (46.7%) in the sham group (P < 0.028). CONCLUSION: A single session of M1 tDCS is suggested as an effective adjuvant therapy to control CINV in female patients suffering from breast cancer and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Corroboratory studies are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207