Prospective surveillance and targeted physiotherapy for arm morbidity after breast cancer surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospective surveillance and targeted physiotherapy (PSTP) compared to education (EDU) on the prevalence of arm morbidity and describe the associated program cost. DESIGN: Pilot randomized single-blinded controlled trial. SETTING: Urban with assessments and treatment delivered in hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women scheduled for breast cancer surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to PSTP ( n = 21) or EDU ( n = 20) and assessed presurgery and 12 months postsurgery. All participants received usual care, namely, preoperative education and provision of an education booklet with postsurgical exercises. The PSTP group was monitored for arm morbidity every three months and referred for physiotherapy if arm morbidity was identified. The EDU group received three education sessions on nutrition, stress and fatigue management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Arm morbidity was based on changes in the surgical arm(s) from presurgery in four domains: (1) shoulder range of motion, (2) strength, (3) volume, and (4) upper body function. Complex arm morbidity indicated ≥2 domains impaired. Second, the cost of the PSTP program was described. RESULTS: At 12 months, 18 (49%) participants (10 PSTP and 8 EDU) had arm morbidity, with EDU participants presenting more complex arm morbidity compared to PSTP participants. PSTP participants attended 4.4 of 5 assessments with 90% retention. The PSTP program cost was $150 covered by the Health Care Provider and the Patient Out-of-Pocket Travel cost was CAN$40. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PSTP is feasible among women with breast cancer for early identification of arm morbidity. A larger study is needed to determine the cost and effectiveness benefits.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".