Xerostomia: From Pharmacological Treatments to Traditional Medicine—An Overview on the Possible Clinical Management and Prevention Using Systemic Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite high incidence rates and severe complications, the management of xerostomia lacks clinical guidelines. The aim of this overview was to summarize the clinical experience derived from the last 10 years of treatments and prevention using systemic compounds. Results showed that the cytoprotective drug amifostine, and its antioxidant agents, are the most discussed as preventive agents of xerostomia in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. In the presence of the disease, the pharmacological treatments have been mainly directed to stimulate secretion of the damaged salivary glands, or to counteract a decreased capacity of the antioxidant system, in view of an increasing of reactive oxygen species (ROS). However, the data demonstrated low ability of the drugs, together with a great number of side effects, which strongly limit their use. Concerning traditional medicine (TM), valid clinical trials are so limited that neither the efficacy nor the absence of interferences to concomitant chemical therapies can be validated. Consequently, the management of xerostomia and its devastating complications remain a very significant void in daily clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".