Prevalence and characteristics of lymphoedema at a wound-care clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lymphoedema is estimated to affect up to 300,000 Canadians but remains underrecognised and undertreated. A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the clinical characteristics and treatment practices of lymphoedema in a Canadian wound care clinic. METHOD: Data were collected retrospectively from dictated clinic notes of 326 lymphoedema patients at a wound clinic in a regional rehabilitation hospital. RESULTS: The mean age (±SD) of diagnosis was 66.8 (±15.5). Patients had 7.3 (±3.3) comorbidities and took 8.4 (±4.6) concomitant medications. The most common comorbidities were venous disease (73%), hypertension (60%), and obesity (46%). Clinic patients were less likely to be women, have arm lymphoedema, or have cancer-related aetiology compared with previous studies, reflecting a two-tiered model of care delivery in the area. Treatments prescribed by the clinic were consistent best practice recommendations for conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of the wound clinic's patients had lymphoedema. Lack of resources, lack of awareness among primary care providers, and patient adherence are barriers to lymphoedema care.
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".