MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968473712 · doi:10.1245/s10434-009-0602-6

Quality of Life After Axillary or Groin Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, With or Without Completion Lymph Node Dissection, in Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma

2009· article· en· W1968473712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. de Vries, Harald J. Hoekstra, Josette E. H. M. Hoekstra‐Weebers

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGroinAxillaLymphedemaAxillary Lymph Node DissectionSentinel lymph nodeQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryBreast cancerLymph nodeBiopsyRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to asses quality of life (QoL) after axillary or inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with or without completion lymph node dissection (CLND) in patients with cutaneous melanoma by comparing patients to a norm group of the general population and by comparing QoL between four patient groups depending on surgical procedure and location, i.e., patients receiving an axillary or groin SLNB, or an axillary or groin CLND. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2003, a total of 242 axillary and inguinal SLNBs were performed. Of the 127 patients eligible for the study, 116 patients participated (91%). QoL was measured by the 30-item European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. RESULTS: Median age at diagnosis was 50 (range, 18-77) years; median Breslow thickness 2.0 (range, 1-13) mm; median follow-up 56 (range, 4-94) months. SLNB only was performed in 89 patients (77%): 48 in the groin and 41 in the axilla. CLND was performed in 27 patients (23%): 13 in the axilla and 14 in the groin. More postoperative complications (13 vs. 5; P < 0.001) and lymphedema (10 vs. 8; P < 0.001) occurred in the CLND group than in the SLNB group. The total group of patients reported better physical (P < 0.001), role (P < 0.001), emotional (P < 0.001), and social functioning (P = 0.049), global QoL (P < 0.001), and less fatigue (P < 0.001) and pain (P < 0.001) than a German norm group. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences in role functioning (P = 0.02) and tendencies toward physical problems (P = 0.051) and fatigue (P = 0.051) between the four groups. Post hoc Bonferroni tests showed that the axillary CLND group had more problems than the axillary and inguinal SLNB groups. Kruskal-Wallis tests showed that the axillary CLND group reported most pain. CONCLUSIONS: QoL in melanoma survivors after axillary or inguinal SLNB with or without CLND was better than that in a norm group. Patients who underwent CLND in the axilla after SLNB reported most problems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations104
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Surgical OncologySame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207