Oral Topical Doxepin Rinse: Anesthetic Effect in Normal Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral doxepin rinse has been reported to provide pain relief in patients with oral mucosal lesions due to cancer or cancer therapy. The purpose of this study was to assess the anesthetic effect of doxepin oral rinse in normal subjects to identify the duration of effect and to contrast the anesthetic effect with reported pain relief in patients with oral mucosal lesions. Normal volunteers were provided a solution of doxepin (5 mg/mL) for oral rinsing. Oral numbness and adverse effects were recorded for a period of 4 h after rinsing. Doxepin rinse resulted in mucosal anesthesia in all subjects. Sedation/fatigue was reported in four of seven subjects. There were no taste complaints and no nausea reported. The limited duration of numbness/anesthesia in normal subjects compared with prior studies showing pain relief for more than 3 h in patients with mucosal lesions, suggests that the extended duration of pain relief in patients was due to analgesic effects rather than anesthetic effects. The majority of normal subjects reported sedation after use, but this was less common in patients with mucosal lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".