Satisfaction and Quality of Life Related to Chemotherapy with an Arm Port: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Placement of arm ports, or totally implanted venous access devices, is a common practice in our interventional radiology suite. We implant a miniaturized port in the upper arm for the provision of long-term chemotherapy. We hypothesized that there was general satisfaction with these arm ports and they have a minimal negative impact on quality of life. In this study we aimed to assess our hypotheses. METHODS: We surveyed subjects, who having previously received an arm port for chemotherapy to treat a malignancy, attended the interventional room for its removal. The survey assessed the port's effect on lifestyle, the degree of device-related pain, the acceptance of the port, and the willingness to have another port in the future. RESULTS: Survey responses from 77 subjects were reviewed. On a scale of 1 (most negative) to 10 (most positive), respondents indicated that the port system was a very positive enhancement to their treatment (satisfaction = 9.2 ± 2.0 and positivity = 8.8 ± 2.2). The port had little impact on daily activities. The mean score for the likelihood of choosing to have another port placed if additional treatment was required was 9.1 ± 2.1. DISCUSSION: The arm port in this study did not negatively impact subject satisfaction and quality of life for this cohort. Most subjects rated the device utility highly and felt that the port was a positive enhancement to their treatment, one that they would possibly utilise again in future, if need be.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".