Standardized Assessment of Breast Cancer Surgical Scars Integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Patients?? Perspectives
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: Currently, there is no standardized, comprehensive method to assess surgical scars after breast cancer surgery. This article evaluates the application of the Vancouver Scar Scale, in conjunction with patients' scar self-rating and scar-related pain, in a cohort of breast cancer patients. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected in 59 women with breast cancer. Scar assessment comprised: 1. objective rating by pairs of independent observers using the Vancouver Scar Scale; 2. patient's ratings of the scar's physical parameters and overall satisfaction; and 3. pain assessment using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. A total of 212 scar scores (59 pairs of breast/chest wall and 47 pairs of axillary scar scores) were generated by 13 observers: three physicians, five radiation therapists, and five nurses. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha statistics. Interobserver reliability was evaluated with Spearman's rho and intraclass correlation coefficient computations. Convergent validity of the observer and patient ratings was examined with Spearman's correlation statistics. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify significant factors associated with Vancouver Scar Scale scores and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The Vancouver Scar Scale, patient self-rating scale, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.79, 0.64, and 0.72 respectively). Interobserver reliability using the Vancouver Scar Scale was significant with Spearman's correlation coefficients of 0.53 for pliability, 0.47 for scar height, 0.49 for vascularity, 0.54 for pigmentation, and 0.66 for overall score (all p values < 0.001). Significant agreement between observer and patient ratings of scar pliability (p = 0.01) and color (p = 0.001) was demonstrated. Mild to moderate pain was reported by more than 40 percent of patients. Patient satisfaction was significantly associated with self-rating of scar pliability and pain, but not Vancouver Scar Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: The Vancouver Scar Scale is a reliable and valid tool to objectively evaluate scars after breast cancer surgery. Evaluation of scar-related pain and patients' scar rating and satisfaction provide additional information relevant to scar assessment. This integrated approach is feasible in a busy clinical setting to advance care and research in scar management for breast cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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