Impact of lymphoedema on arm function and health-related quality of life in women following breast cancer surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent to which the impairments associated with lymphoedema (volume increase, local oedema and sensory alteration) are linked to arm dysfunction and sub-optimal health-related quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study, embedded within a pilot for an epidemiologic study, was undertaken involving women who had undergone surgery for unilateral stage I or II breast cancer. Two questionnaires (a lymphoedema screening questionnaire and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) were mailed and 72 of 204 responders reported having one or more symptoms of lymphoedema (prevalence 35%). A total of 50 women with symptoms attended for further testing. RESULTS: Women with self-reported symptoms of lymphoedema had a significantly higher score on the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (mean difference 23.4, 95% confidence interval 19.3-27.5), indicating activity limitation and participation restriction. Pain was the only impairment directly correlated with activity limitation, participation restriction and sub-optimal health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: These findings have implications for treatment, and the outcome measures used for the assessment of lymph?oedema. Treatments focusing on decreasing arm volume without addressing issues of pain may not result in improvements in activity, participation, or health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".