Early detection of lymphoedema: Is BIS ready for prime time as the gold standard?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are very few studies where quality of life (QOL) is assessed in patients with complete physical and functional disability and dependence to invasive mechanical ventilation (IV). We compared QOL of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and locked-in-syndrome (LIS) patients with invasive mechanical ventilation to ALS and LIS patients without mechanical invasive ventilation. Thirty-four patients, 27 with ALS and seven with LIS (vascular or tumoral aetiology) were included in the study. Twelve had invasive ventilation, 22 had non-invasive ventilation, and in the non-invasive ventilation group, five of them had ventilation via mask. The following scales were used for patients: ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS), McGILL, Short-Form 36 (SF36), Beck Depression Inventory-II, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the anxiety inventory of Spielberger. Mean ALSFRS scores were significantly lower in the invasive ventilation group (IV) than in the non-invasive ventilation group. McGILL and SF36 were not significantly different between the IV group and the non-invasive ventilation group; there were no significant differences between the two groups for others scales either. Comparison between IV group and LIS without invasive mechanical ventilation revealed no significant difference for SF36 and McGILL QOL scores. QOL was not significantly different between the IV and not invasively ventilated patients, but ALSFRS was significantly lower in the IV group, and comparison of QOL scores between non-ventilated LIS patients who had the same score of dependence that invasively ventilated patients did not show any difference. Invasive mechanical ventilation for patients who accept tracheotomy allows life prolongation and their QOL is not affected; medical teams should be aware of that.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".