Outcome of Ivermectin in Cancer Treatment: An Experience in Loja-Ecuador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and trends in cancer incidence and mortality are increasing over last years in Loja-Ecuador. Cancer treatment is expensive because of social and economic issues which force the patients to look for other alternatives. One such alternative treatment is ivermectin-based antiparasitic, which is commonly used in treating cattle. This paper analyzed ivermectin use as cancer treatment in the rural area of the Loja province and the medical opinion regarding the use of ivermectin in humans. (2) Methods: The study used a mixed methodology using different sampling techniques such as observation, surveys, and interviews. (3) Results: The main findings show that 19% of the participants diagnosed with cancer take medicines based on ivermectin as alternative therapy to the cancer control and treatment without leaving treatment such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or immunotherapy, while 81% use it to treat other diseases. (4) Conclusions: Finally, we identify that the interviewed not only use IVM as anticancer treatment, but it is also used as a treatment against other diseases. Although the participants' opinions indicate that they feel improvements in their health after the third dose, the specialist considers that there is no authorization to prescribe these alternative treatments. In addition, they confirmed that currently, there is no scientific knowledge about the application of these treatments in humans and they do not recommend their application. Thus, the anticancer mechanism of ivermectin remains to be further investigated; therefore, we consider that it is important to continue with this research by proposing a new stage to evaluate and determine the pharmacological action of this type of drug through an in vitro study in different cultures of cancer cells.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".