Salivary proteomic biomarkers of oral squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS) and verify if the benefits on symptoms are due to placebo therapy.A further comparison of efficacy was performed with pharmacological therapy (topical clonazepam).Methods.The patients were divided into three therapeutic groups.The first group received LLLT with a diode laser (980 nm, 10 Joules/cm 2 , 0.3 W).The second group received a placebo laser treatment.The third group was treated topically with clonazepam for twenty-one days.The effectiveness in reducing symptoms was evaluated by compiling the VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) scale, the McGill pain questionnaire, the PPI (Present Pain Intensity), the OHIP-49 (Oral Health Impact Profile).Moreover, the HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and GDS (Geriatric Depression Scale) questionnaires evaluated the efficay of the treatment proposed regarding the anxiety-depression profile.Results.Forty-one patients were finally analyzed (mean age 66.29 years).During the follow-up of three months, we reported a significant improvement in pain reduction (88.2% in the laser group and 83.3% in the placebo laser group, without a statistical significant difference); however, only the 58.3% of patients treated with clonazepam reported an improvement.In these patients, the improvement is significant at the end of therapy.None of the treatments significantly influenced the anxious-depressive components.Conclusions.LLLT improves symptoms of patients with burning mouth syndrome since the first application.LLLT seems to offer higher and more consistent therapeutic results compared to topical therapy with clonazepam.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".