Aquatic Exercise Training Program Outcomes on Quality Of Life and Lower Limb Lymphedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower limb lymphedema (LLL) has a negative impact on many aspects of daily living, including household chores, physical activity, and psychological well-being. Patients with LLL that are not properly managed may become progressively worse and lead to an increases impairment of physical functional capacity and decline in the quality of life. PURPOSE: To determine whether patients with LLL can benefit from water immersion exercise to improve quality of life and control-diminish limb volume. METHODS: A total of 7 female participants affected by bilateral (n=4) or unilateral (n=3) LLL were included in this pilot study. Patients had primary or secondary LLL as complications of melanoma or gynecological cancers. Water immersion interval training exercise was conducted over a 6-week period (12 sessions of 45 minutes) and consisted of yoga exercises, aqua-jogging, pedaling on a water stationary bike and muscular training on a step and a trampoline. Outcome measures were taken before (pre) and after (post) the exercise program using the quality of life for limb lymphedema questionnaire (LYMQOL), 6 min walk test, handgrip strength test, bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) and lower limb circumferences. RESULTS: Pre vs post lower limb circumference volumes remained stable, while BIS measurements increased significantly (Ro = 204.8 ± 58.5 vs 220.9 ± 68.3 ohm, p=0.04) indicating a reduction in the extracellular fluid compartment. The distance covered in the 6 min walk test (458.4 ± 117.0 vs 520.0 ± 126.0 meter, p=0.04) and the sum of right and left handgrip strength (32.6 ± 5.6 vs38.0 ± 10.8 kg, p=0.003) were significantly improved and so did the emotion score (2.1 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 0.6, p=0.03) and overall quality of life (7.09 ± 1.8 vs 8.1 ± 0.8, p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Water immersion exercise training allowed patients with lower limb lymphedema to lower the extracellular fluid volume, increases physical fitness, and quality of life outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".