Evaluation of a pilot nurse-led, community-based treatment programme for lymphoedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: to evaluate the effect of this treatment programme on lymphoedema specific fluid volume, pain, discomfort, limb function and quality of life outcomes. DESIGN: prospective, descriptive study. SAMPLE AND SETTING: a convenience sample of four women with breast cancer related lymphoedema referred to a community-based specialist oncology nurse consultant programme in Canada that involved manual lymph drainage combined with compression bandaging. MEASURES: circumferential arm measurements to assess fluid volume, visual analogue scales to assess the impact of lymphoedema on specific practical, physical and psychosocial problems known to be affected by lymphoedema and field notes. RESULTS: although a reduction in arm volume was observed, quality of life outcomes worsened for most of the women as they realized that this symptom would require lifelong management, serving as a reminder of their breast cancer experience. CONCLUSIONS: lymphoedema treatment programmes must ensure that the multidimensional impact of this symptom on women's lives is recognized and addressed as part of the treatment process.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".