MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128499793 · doi:10.1200/jco.2013.51.8373

Mounting Evidence Against Complex Decongestive Therapy As a First-Line Treatment for Early Lymphedema

2013· letter· en· W2128499793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara H. Javid, Benjamin O. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphedemaBreast cancerSurgeryAxillary Lymph Node DissectionSentinel lymph nodeCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arm lymphedema is a feared and presently incurable complication of breast cancer surgery and radiation treatment (RT).Lymphedema results from excess interstitial fluid accumulation, which leads to limb swelling and eventual tissue fibrosis that can cause lifelong impairment of arm use.Lymphedema concerns take center stage at many, if not the majority, of preoperative and postoperative consultations with patients who are undergoing breast cancer surgery, given that this complication can permanently harm quality of life, from both a physical/functional perspective as well as a psychosocial one.Findings from a 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis of 72 studies revealed an estimated 17% risk of arm lymphedema among patients with breast cancer, with risk increasing up to 2 years after surgery. 1 The risk was four times higher in women who had a complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND; 20%) versus those who had sentinel lymph node biopsy alone (5.6%).Among women who receive adjuvant RT after ALND, lymphedema risk is significantly higher.In a 2001 systematic review, the rate of lymphedema among women who underwent surgery plus axillary RT was an alarming 41%. 2 Aside from treatment-related risk factors, a number of patient or disease-related risk factors exist for the development of lymphedema.Postoperative infection or delayed wound healing is associated with heightened lymphedema risk.A much more prevalent risk factor is obesity (body mass index Ͼ 30 kg/m 2 ), which portends a nearly three-fold increase in risk for lymphedema.3 According to 2009/2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, 36% of all women and 42% of women age 60 years or older are obese in the United States.4 In the current era, with widening adoption of the findings of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial, incidence of lymphedema should decline, given that we see decreasing rates of completion ALND among a subset of women undergoing breast-conserving therapy.5 However, there remains a large population of patients with node-positive disease for whom ALND is still indicated, including those with clinically positive nodes, locally advanced disease, those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and those undergoing mastectomy.Hence, research into the treatment of this chronic condition remains an important public health issue.Because many lymphedema risk factors are not modifiable, attention has largely been directed at treatment.To this aim, a number

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.443
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207