Measurement of objective shoulder function following breast cancer surgery: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Decreased shoulder function is frequently experienced by breast cancer survivors following surgery, and it is associated with both decreased ability to perform daily living tasks and decreased overall quality of life, even several years post-surgery. Shoulder function is often measured with self-reported questionnaires. If objective measurements are taken, they are frequently restricted to range of motion measurement in the cardinal planes of movement. It is not known to what extent shoulder motion in more functional tasks has been investigated. Objectives: This review aims to determine what is known about the objectively evaluated shoulder function following breast cancer and to determine what are the most frequently used methods for evaluation. Methods: This protocol outlines the steps that will be taken to conduct a high quality scoping review on the objective measurement of shoulder function in breast cancer survivors. A comprehensive search of several databases will be performed to identify all relevant research. All identified studies will be screened and those including the objective measurement of shoulder function of breast cancer survivors post-surgery will be included. Data will be extracted by two reviewers and results will be consolidated and presented in narrative form as well as tables and figures. Conclusion: The resulting synthesis of the literature will provide a comprehensive overview of the current methods of evaluating shoulder function in breast cancer survivors. This review will elucidate gaps in knowledge regarding objective measurement of shoulder function and help to develop future research questions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| 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".