MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894554705 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzy117

Self-Measured Arm Circumference in Women With Breast Cancer Is Reliable and Valid

2018· article· en· W2894554705 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPhysiotherapy Foundation of Canada
KeywordsIntraclass correlationInter-rater reliabilityPhysical therapyIntra-rater reliabilityMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Breast cancerTape measurePsychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyCancerConfidence intervalRating scaleDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Prospective surveillance by physical therapists enables early detection and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Strategies to increase access to prospective surveillance could reduce the burden of BCRL on patients and the health system. One potential solution is self-managed surveillance that does not require in-person assessment by a specialized physical therapist. Objective: The objective was to develop and test the reliability and validity of a written and video-supported protocol for women with breast cancer to self-measure arm circumference. Design: This was a cross-sectional reliability and validity study. Results: The intrarater reliability between CIRself_home and CIRself_lab and the interrater reliability between CIRself_lab and CIRther was high to excellent for both arms in both groups (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.86). VOLself_lab correlated strongly with VOLper (r ≥ 0.95), demonstrating excellent validity. Participants reported strong intention, self-efficacy, and positive attitude toward the performance of self-managed surveillance for BCRL, which was not perceived to increase worry about having or getting BCRL. Methods: Participants with (n = 20) and without (n = 21) BCRL completed self-measurement of arm circumference on both arms at home (CIRself_home) and at the lab (CIRself_lab) (intrarater reliability). The CIRself_lab was subsequently compared to measures performed by a specialized physical therapist (CIRther) (interrater reliability). To test validity, arm volume calculated from the self-measurements (VOLself_lab) was compared to perometry measurements (VOLper). Participants completed a questionnaire to assess attitudes for performing self-managed surveillance for BCRL. Limitations: These findings need to be replicated in a clinical setting to confirm the reliability and acceptability of self-managed surveillance for BCRL among women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Conclusions: Self-measured arm circumference is reliable and valid among women with and without BCRL. Self-managed surveillance for BCRL can support self-efficacy without increasing anxiety.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it