MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057937360 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs-1119

Effect of airplane travel on women treated for breast cancer.

2009· article· en· W2057937360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon L. Kilbreath, Leigh C. Ward, Kirstin N. Lane, Margaret L. McNeely, Elaine Williams, David R. McKenzie, Kathryn M. Refshauge, K J Battersby

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphedemaMedicineBreast cancerMastectomyCancerExacerbationGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract #1119 Background: Many patient materials promulgate lifestyle adaptations purported to minimize risk of lymphedema. One factor often mentioned is development or exacerbation of lymphedema due to airplane travel. The aim of this study was to describe prospectively the effect of airplane travel on women treated for breast cancer, traveling to Caloundra, Qld., Australia to attend a dragon boat regatta.
 Methods: Pre and post data were obtained from 63 women traveling from Canada to Australia, and from 12 women traveling within Australia. 54% were treated for breast cancer on their dominant side, 63% underwent mastectomy with or without reconstruction, 77% underwent axillary node dissection, and 21% wore a compression sleeve during flight; 94% trained at a moderate to vigorous intensity for the regatta. Single frequency bioimpedance analysis (BIA; XCA; Impedimed Inc.®) was used to determine the inter-limb difference in upper limb extracellular fluid. BIA is highly reliable and has high sensitivity and specificity for increased extracellular fluid accumulation. Change in ratio >0.05 for women without lymphoedema is of clinical significance. Women were measured within 2 weeks of their flight to Caloundra, immediately on arrival in Caloundra, and for 46 women, within 6 weeks of return to Canada.
 Results: Airplane travel did not have a significant effect on the upper limb BIA ratio, either between the pre and post flight (t75= -0.355; p=0.72) or between the pre and follow-up measures (t44=.241; p=0.811).
 
 Overall, the BIA post ratio increased from the pre measure by ≤0.02 in 48 women; 0.02 to <0.05 in 12 women; 0.05 to <0.10 in 10 women; and >0.10 in 5 women (Fig 1). In Figure 1, symbols in grey-shaded area represents women who did not have lymphedema prior to flight but presented with it post flight and the dashed lines indicate previously established cut-offs for criteria for detection of lymphedema. Dotted line on each graph is the line of agreement. The 6 symbols in the grey shaded area (Fig 1) represent women from the international group; their change in BIA ranged from 0.05 to 0.28. Follow-up measures were available on 5 of these women, and indicated that 4 were below the cut-offs for lymphedema. All 6 women had undergone mastectomy and axillary clearance of their lymph nodes and for 5, surgery was on their dominant side. Only 3 of the women wore a compressive sleeve on the plane.
 Discussion: For the majority of women who undertake moderate to vigorous upper limb exercise, airplane travel did not have a significant impact on extracellular fluid ratio. Acknowledgment: Impedimed for funding and equipment. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 1119.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207