Component

Refractory radiation proctitis severity by SOMA-LENT score

Refractory radiation proctitis severity by SOMA-LENT score. Species, exposure and limitations are retained in each linked claim.

2 recorded relationships. Experimental role, claim status and evidence remain attached to each record.

Read recorded mechanisms Open recursive mind map

How nutrients influence it

Every nutrient with a recorded effect on this component, credited to the nutrient that acted rather than the chapter that recorded it. Open a nutrient to see the findings and the conditions they were measured under.

How nutrients reach it in more than one step

Chains of two or more recorded steps that end here, grouped by the nutrient they start from. Each step is a separate finding, so a chain is a route a mechanism could take, not proof that it does.

Tracing routes…

What it does

Every recorded relationship this component is part of, grouped by its role. Plain wording comes first; the technical statement follows.

Recorded relationships

What acts on it

  1. Mean SOMA-LENT score improvement was nearly twice as large in the treated group (5.00 versus 2.61), with more responders per clinical assessment (88.9% versus 62.5%) and an absolute risk reduction of 32%, and the differences were abolished after crossover.

    Hyperbaric oxygen therapy → Refractory radiation proctitis severity by SOMA-LENT score source_derived_draftungraded
    Experimental context and source evidence
    evidence_span
    {"source_cache": "artifacts/hbot-research/18342453.abstract.txt", "locator": "Indexed abstract; zero-based, end-exclusive Unicode character offsets", "file_sha256": "e54a071083cc14d5dcb6461692588b064f94d560a91045313836b0dca18cfe85", "start_char": 0, "end_char": 1963, "text_sha256": "e54a071083cc14d5dcb6461692588b064f94d560a91045313836b0dca18cfe85"}
    experimental_model
    Randomised controlled double-blind crossover trial of 150 patients with refractory radiation proctitis
    exposure
    2.0 atmospheres absolute versus air at 1.1 atmospheres absolute, with crossover
    limitations
    A double-blind crossover trial with a sham arm and five-year follow-up. The crossover abolished the between-group difference, which is consistent with a real treatment effect.
    nutrient_topic
    Hyperbaric oxygen research collection; topical membership is not evidence of a direct clinical effect, and a therapeutic exposure is not a dietary intake. · Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
    organism
    Human
    plain_language
    Most treated people improved, and the sham group improved too once they crossed over.
    primary_references
    [hbot-p18342453] Hyperbaric oxygen treatment of chronic refractory radiation proctitis: a randomized and controlled double-blind crossover trial with long-term follow-up. (2008). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18342453/ DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.048
    tissue_or_cell_type
    Rectal mucosa

    Hyperbaric oxygen: the exposure, its reactive species, the signals they carry, and the nutrient-dependent enzymes that handle them (2026-09-19) · lines 1102–1113

    AI-assisted literature curation; primary study URLs and scope retained in the document and extraction. Not publisher full text. · supports · Randomised controlled double-blind crossover trial of 150 patients with refractory radiation proctitis · source_derived_draft · unverified_draft

    ### hbot-radiation-proctitis-improvement Mean SOMA-LENT score improvement was nearly twice as large in the treated group (5.00 versus 2.61), with more responders per clinical assessment (88.9% versus 62.5%) and an absolute risk reduction of 32%, and the differences were abolished after crossover. Condition category: normal nutrient_topic: Hyperbaric oxygen research collection; topical membership is not evidence of a direct clinical effect, and a therapeutic exposure is not a dietary intake. plain_language: Most treated people improved, and the sham group improved too once they crossed over. organism: Human tissue_or_cell_type: Rectal mucosa experimental_model: Randomised controlled double-blind crossover trial of 150 patients with refractory radiation proctitis limitations: A double-blind crossover trial with a sham arm and five-year follow-up. The crossover abolished the between-group difference, which is consistent with a real treatment effect. exposure: 2.0 atmospheres absolute versus air at 1.1 atmospheres absolute, with crossover evidence_span: {"source_cache": "artifacts/hbot-research/18342453.abstract.txt", "locator": "Indexed abstract; zero-based, end-exclusive Unicode character offsets", "file_sha256": "e54a071083cc14d5dcb6461692588b064f94d560a91045313836b0dca18cfe85", "start_char": 0, "end_char": 1963, "text_sha256": "e54a071083cc14d5dcb6461692588b064f94d560a91045313836b0dca18cfe85"} [hbot-p18342453] Hyperbaric oxygen treatment of chronic refractory radiation proctitis: a randomized and controlled double-blind crossover trial with long-term follow-up. (2008). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18342453/ DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.048
    Complete structured claim and evidence

Where it participates (unsigned role)

  1. The review reports that systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials support clinical use of hyperbaric oxygen for refractory diabetic wound healing and radiation injuries, while compromised flaps, grafts and ischaemia-reperfusion disorders are supported by animal studies and a small number of clinical trials.

    Hyperbaric oxygen therapy → Wound healing source_derived_draftungraded
    Experimental context and source evidence
    evidence_span
    {"source_cache": "artifacts/hbot-research/21200283.abstract.txt", "locator": "Indexed abstract; zero-based, end-exclusive Unicode character offsets", "file_sha256": "541f2eb700a843e35093e589069b7839f1a3577c2de8cd1edb444698c1379380", "start_char": 0, "end_char": 1120, "text_sha256": "541f2eb700a843e35093e589069b7839f1a3577c2de8cd1edb444698c1379380"}
    experimental_model
    Narrative review of therapeutic mechanisms and clinical trial evidence
    exposure
    Hyperbaric oxygen as used clinically, typically 2.0 to 2.5 atmospheres absolute
    limitations
    A narrative review, not a primary experiment. It is recorded as the framing source the reader was given; every mechanism it names is also recorded here from its own primary paper.
    nutrient_topic
    Hyperbaric oxygen research collection; topical membership is not evidence of a direct clinical effect, and a therapeutic exposure is not a dietary intake. · Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
    organism
    Human, with supporting animal work
    plain_language
    The evidence is strongest for stubborn diabetic wounds and radiation damage, and thinner elsewhere.
    primary_references
    [hbot-p21200283] Hyperbaric oxygen: its mechanisms and efficacy. (2011). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21200283/ DOI: 10.1097/prs.0b013e3181fbe2bf
    tissue_or_cell_type
    Multiple tissues

    Hyperbaric oxygen: the exposure, its reactive species, the signals they carry, and the nutrient-dependent enzymes that handle them (2026-09-19) · lines 75–86

    AI-assisted literature curation; primary study URLs and scope retained in the document and extraction. Not publisher full text. · supports · Narrative review of therapeutic mechanisms and clinical trial evidence · source_derived_draft · unverified_draft

    ### hbot-review-efficacy-scope The review reports that systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials support clinical use of hyperbaric oxygen for refractory diabetic wound healing and radiation injuries, while compromised flaps, grafts and ischaemia-reperfusion disorders are supported by animal studies and a small number of clinical trials. Condition category: normal nutrient_topic: Hyperbaric oxygen research collection; topical membership is not evidence of a direct clinical effect, and a therapeutic exposure is not a dietary intake. plain_language: The evidence is strongest for stubborn diabetic wounds and radiation damage, and thinner elsewhere. organism: Human, with supporting animal work tissue_or_cell_type: Multiple tissues experimental_model: Narrative review of therapeutic mechanisms and clinical trial evidence limitations: A narrative review, not a primary experiment. It is recorded as the framing source the reader was given; every mechanism it names is also recorded here from its own primary paper. exposure: Hyperbaric oxygen as used clinically, typically 2.0 to 2.5 atmospheres absolute evidence_span: {"source_cache": "artifacts/hbot-research/21200283.abstract.txt", "locator": "Indexed abstract; zero-based, end-exclusive Unicode character offsets", "file_sha256": "541f2eb700a843e35093e589069b7839f1a3577c2de8cd1edb444698c1379380", "start_char": 0, "end_char": 1120, "text_sha256": "541f2eb700a843e35093e589069b7839f1a3577c2de8cd1edb444698c1379380"} [hbot-p21200283] Hyperbaric oxygen: its mechanisms and efficacy. (2011). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21200283/ DOI: 10.1097/prs.0b013e3181fbe2bf
    Complete structured claim and evidence

In the sources

Preserved passages that mention this component, quoted exactly. Open one to read it in context.

    This is a research prototype built from draft material. It is not medical advice, and its statements still await verification against the original studies.

    Evidence, AI assistance and curation standards