Lymphedema Impact and Prevalence International Study: The Canadian Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Chronic edema/lymphedema is defined as edema present for more than 3 months. It is underrecognized and undertreated. The International Lymphedema Framework developed an international study, Lymphedema Impact and Prevalence International (LIMPRINT), to estimate the prevalence and impact of chronic edema in heterogeneous populations. Canada participated in this study. Methods and Results: Participants were recruited from an outpatient chronic wound management clinic. At a study visit, the following tools were administered: The Core Tool, Demographics and Disability assessment (WHODAS 2.0), Quality-of-life assessment (LYMQOL + EQ-5D), Details of swelling, Wound assessment, and Cancer. Data were entered into an international database (Clindex), and country-specific data were analyzed. Sixty-eight subjects were enrolled. Fifty-seven percent were males and 43% females. More than 90% were older than 45 years. Only 7.35% had primary lymphedema. Most had lower extremity edema (65 of 68). Over half (47.06%) were morbidly obese with body mass index of >40. The most common underlying condition was venous disease. Only 8 of 68 had a history of cancer. While 72.06% had a history of cellulitis, only 10.2% had been hospitalized in the past year. 39.71% had an open wound. More than 75% had received multilayer bandaging, compression garments, wound dressings, and extensive counseling. Few had received manual lymphatic drainage, which is not funded. Disability was less than expected. Conclusion: Chronic edema/lymphedema is an underrecognized condition. These data and the wider LIMPRINT study are important tools to advocate for wider recognition and funding of treatment by health care systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".