The Impact of Living With Severe Lower Extremity Lymphedema
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Debilitating lower extremity lymphedema can be either congenital or acquired. Utility scores are an objective measure used in medicine to quantify degrees of impact on an individual's life. Using standardized utility outcome measures, we aimed to quantify the health state of living with severe unilateral lower extremity lymphedema. METHODS: A utility outcomes assessment using visual analog scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble was used for lower extremity lymphedema, monocular blindness, and binocular blindness from a sample of the general population and medical students. Average utility scores were compared using a paired t test. Linear regression was performed using age, race, and education as independent predictors. RESULTS: A total of 144 prospective participants were included. All measures [visual analog scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble; expressed as mean (SD)] for unilateral lower extremity lymphedema (0.50 ± 0.18, 0.76 ± 0.22, and 0.76 ± 0.21, respectively) were significantly different (P < 0.001) from the corresponding scores for monocular blindness (0.64 ± 0.18, 0.84 ± 0.16, and 0.83 ± 0.17, respectively) and binocular blindness (0.35 ± 0.17, 0.61 ± 0.28, and 0.62 ± 0.26, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found that a sample of the general population and medical students, if faced with severe lymphedema, is willing to theoretically trade 8.64 life-years and undergo a procedure with a 24% risk of mortality to restore limb appearance and function to normal. These findings provide a frame of reference regarding the meaning of a diagnosis of severe lower extremity lymphedema to a patient and will allow objective comparison with other health states.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it