Self-Measured Arm Circumference in Women With Breast Cancer Is Reliable and Valid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".