Gait and Balance Impairments in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize gait and balance impairments in breast cancer survivors compared with age-matched controls or normative values for adults who never had breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: until November 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they were randomized control trials, cross-sectional, prospective, pre-post, or case-control by design, included adult breast cancer survivors, reported gait and/or balance metrics as primary or secondary outcomes, were peer-reviewed publications, and were written in English. The search yielded 2117 results with 29 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers assessed study quality by the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies to determine the strength of evidence for each study that met the inclusion criteria. Basic descriptors of each study, study protocol, and balance and gait measures were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed for the single leg stance, functional reach, center of pressure velocity, gait speed, and timed up and go. DATA SYNTHESIS: =.33). Pooled values of the functional reach task (22.16cm; 95% CI, 8.98-35.33) and center of pressure velocity (1.2cm/s; 95% CI, 0.87-1.55) suggest balance impairment in breast cancer survivors when compared with normative values. Breast cancer survivors also performed worse than those who never had breast cancer in challenging balance conditions that reduced sensory information or altered base of support. Pooled gait speed at a usual speed (0.91m/s; 95% CI, 0.2-1.6), fast speed across a short distance (1.2m/s; 95% CI, 0.31-2.1), and fast gait speed across a long distance (1.65m/s; 95% CI, 1.64-1.66) suggest gait impairments when compared with normative values. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors may demonstrate gait and balance impairments compared with normative values. Clinicians should consider assessing changes in balance and gait in breast cancer survivors to improve functional independence and prevent fall-related injuries.
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 | 0.019 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".