MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404033506 · doi:10.1088/1752-7163/ad8e7c

Effectiveness of a combination of laccase and green coffee extract on oral malodor: a comparative, randomized, controlled, evaluator-blind, parallel-group trial

2024· article· en· W4404033506 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvia Santos, Caterina Holz, Kimberly R Milleman, Jeffery L Milleman, Gu Wenqian, Luis R Mateo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Breath Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLozengePlaceboFlavorOdorPopulationHydrogen sulfideRandomized controlled trialFood scienceMedicineChemistrySurgerySulfurOrganic chemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oral malodor negatively impacts a person’s quality of life and may affect up to 50% of the population. The aim of this randomized, placebo and no-product controlled, evaluator-blind, proof-of-concept study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the single use of two experimental lozenges containing the laccase enzyme and green coffee extract (with and without flavor) in reducing intrinsic oral malodor. Following 12–16 h of avoidance of oral hygiene,156 generally healthy subjects presented at screening and baseline visits with a mean organoleptic odor intensity (OI) score of ⩾2 and an OralChromaTM reading of ⩾125 parts per billion (ppb) hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas and were randomly assigned to receive either one of the two experimental lozenges, a placebo lozenge, or no-product. Following the supervised use of the assigned products, subjects’ oral malodor was evaluated using OI assessments and OralChromaTM measurement for volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) immediately following product use (approximately 5 min), and at 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 3 h and 4 h. The two experimental lozenges, with and without flavor, showed significant reductions in OI scores compared with the placebo and no-product groups at all time points (p < 0.001). At 5 min post-product use, the experimental lozenges, with and without flavor, were significantly better than the no-product group in reducing the VSCs (p < 0.04). The results of individual VSC components (hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan and dimethyl sulfide) were variable; both experimental lozenges notably reduced hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan levels in most post-use assessments. Four minor adverse events were reported, none of which were directly linked to the product. In conclusion, the experimental lozenges, whether flavored or not, were safe and effective in reducing oral malodor over a span of 4 h, based on organoleptic OI scores. Clinical Trial No: NCT05950529

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Breath ResearchSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207