Assessment of health‐related quality of life in patients with lymphedema of the lower limb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of a number of tools in the evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with lower limb lymphedema, and to determine the consequences of cancer history and concurrent leg ulceration. Patients in one health trust having lower limb lymphedema were identified and interviewed at entry and after 24 weeks. The short form-36 (SF-36), modified Barthel scale, McGill short form pain questionnaire, and Euroqol were administered at both time points. Of the 164 (median age=76.9 years, 70.7% women) patients who comprised the study population, 15.2% had a history of cancer and 30.4% had coexisting current leg ulceration. Internal consistencies were high for all scales (Cronbach's alpha >0.80). There were high ceiling effects for a number of SF-36 scores, and high floor effects in these and the McGill short form pain questionnaire, scales. Despite these limitations, there was strong evidence that treatment led to significant improvements in six of eight scores of the SF-36, three of three scores of the McGill short form pain questionnaire and the modified Barthel scale (all p<0.05). The improvement in physical functioning was significantly greater for patients who entered the study with a leg ulcer (mean different=9.1, 95% confidence interval 2.1-16.1, p=0.011). Patients treated with compression bandaging had significantly greater improvements for physical functioning (10.2) than those treated with compression hosiery (-1.5) or no treatment (-2.0), p=0.001. Of the tools assessed, the SF-36, appears to be the most appropriate for use in this patient group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".