Challenging the myth of exercise-induced lymphedema following breast cancer: A series of case reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women who have had axillary lymph nodes removed for the management of breast cancer are at increased risk of developing upper extremity lymphedema. Physical therapists, surgeons, and other health professionals have warned these women to avoid vigorous, repetitive, or excessive upper body exercise, believing that such types of exercise might actually induce lymphedema. The purpose of this series of case reports was to challenge that belief by systematically measuring the arm circumferences, across three points in time, of 20 women who had received axillary dissection and who were competing in the vigorous, upper body sport of Dragon Boat racing. Measurably different change was defined as an increase in circumference of the ipsilateral upper extremity at any of the four landmarks of >0.5 inches between Time 1 and Time 2 or between Time 1 and Time 3; only two women showed a measurably different change (5/8 in). Furthermore, none of the women showed a clinically significant difference in arm circumference between the ipsilateral and contralateral extremities at Time 3.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".