Validation of a sternal skin conductance criterion for measuring hot flashes in breast cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish the sternal skin conductance level (SCL) increase that would optimally detect hot flashes among breast cancer patients. METHODS: Fifty-six women who had completed a similar treatment protocol for a first diagnosis of breast cancer within the previous 3 months wore an ambulatory sternal skin conductance device for one home-based daytime recording of hot flashes. RESULTS: A total of 199 hot flashes were reported by the participants using the event marker. A 2-μS (μmho) SCL increase within a 30-second period, the criterion typically used, had a sensitivity of only 32% and a specificity of 97%. Comparatively, the alternative criterion proposed here, a 1.2-μmho SCL increase, yielded a sensitivity of 61% and a specificity of 90%. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that a lower SCL criterion should be used to better detect objectively recorded hot flashes among breast cancer patients. Further work is needed to validate the proposed criterion among this population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".