A retrospective study of the effects of the Lymphapress pump on lymphedema in a pediatric population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the effects of the Lymphapress pump (LP; Global Medical Imports, Digby, NS, Canada) retrospectively on 16 children with primary or secondary lymphedema of the upper or lower extremities by measuring the volume and circumference of the limbs before and after treatment. We reviewed medical charts for data on age, sex, length of disease process, grade of lymphedema, frequency and duration of treatment, and pump pressures used. We recorded changes in limb size before and after pumping in terms of the mean percentage difference between the affected and unaffected limb at both time points to allow for growth of the child and the extremity. On volumetric measures, thirteen (93%) of the subjects showed a clinical trend towards sustained maintenance or reduction in size of the lymphedematous limb(s). The reduction in the pump pressure at start of the treatment to that required to maintain the size of the limb was statistically significant (p = 0.0036). Fourteen (88%) of the subjects had no complications directly attributable to the pump, whereas two had complications that were probably unrelated to LP. Overall, there was a clinical trend towards reduction or maintenance of the lymphedematous limb size in children using LP without notable adverse sequelae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".