Effect of Upper Extremity Exercise on Secondary Lymphedema in Breast Cancer Patients: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of a progressive upper-body exercise program on lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Fourteen breast cancer survivors with unilateral upper extremity lymphedema were randomly assigned to an exercise (n = 7) or control group (n = 7). The exercise group followed a progressive, 8-week upper-body exercise program consisting of resistance training plus aerobic exercise using a Monark Rehab Trainer arm ergometer. Lymphedema was assessed by arm circumference and measurement of arm volume by water displacement. Patients were evaluated on five occasions over the experimental period. The Medical Outcomes Trust Short-Form 36 Survey was used to measure quality of life before and after the intervention. Significance was set at alpha < or = 0.01. RESULTS: No changes were found in arm circumference or arm volume as a result of the exercise program. Three of the quality-of-life domains showed trends toward increases in the exercise group: physical functioning (P =.050), general health (P =.048), and vitality (P =.023). Mental health increased, although not significantly, for all subjects (P =.019). Arm volume measured by water displacement was correlated with calculated arm volume (r =.973, P <.001), although the exercise and control group means were significantly different (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in an upper-body exercise program caused no changes in arm circumference or arm volume in women with lymphedema after breast cancer, and they may have experienced an increase in quality of life. Additional studies should be done in this area to determine the optimum training program.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".