Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the economic impact of complete decongestive therapy and lymphovenous bypass in the management of upper extremity lymphedema. METHODS: Economics were modeled for a patient with breast cancer-related lymphedema undergoing three different clinical pathways: (1) complete decongestive therapy alone; (2) lymphovenous bypass no longer requiring ongoing complete decongestive therapy; or (3) lymphovenous bypass requiring ongoing complete decongestive therapy. Activity-based cost analysis identified costs incurred with complete decongestive therapy and lymphovenous bypass. Costs were retrieved from supplier price lists, physician fee schedules, lymphedema therapists, and literature reviews. The net present value of all costs incurred for each clinical pathway were calculated. RESULTS: The estimated net present value of all costs for a patient with breast cancer-related lymphedema undergoing treatment were as follows: (1) complete decongestive therapy alone ($30,400); (2) lymphovenous bypass no longer requiring ongoing complete decongestive therapy ($15,000); or (3) lymphovenous bypass requiring ongoing complete decongestive therapy ($42,100). The expected net present value of all costs for lymphovenous bypass was $26,800, which was comparable to that of complete decongestive therapy alone. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the expected net present value of lymphovenous bypass was dependent on the patient's life expectancy, number of bypass anastomoses, and likelihood of discontinuing complete decongestive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphedema has substantial ongoing costs irrespective of the treatment modality. The cost of lymphovenous bypass appears comparable to that of complete decongestive therapy alone-the surgical costs of lymphovenous bypass are offset by the savings from discontinued ongoing therapy. Despite its limitations as a theoretical economic model, this study provides insight into the potential economic impact of lymphovenous bypass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".