Risk factors for breast cancer-related upper extremity lymphedema:a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically evaluate the risk factors for upper extremity lymphedema after breast cancer treatment and the strength of their associations.Methods PubMed,Ovid,EMbase,and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify clinical trials published up to December 2012.The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale;data analysis was performed by Stata 10.0 and RevMan 5.2;the strength of associations between risk factors and breast cancer-related upper extremity lymphedema was described as odds ratio (OR) and 95％ confidence intervals (CI).Results Twenty-two studies involving 10106 patients were included in the meta-analysis.The risk factors for upper extremity lymphedema after breast cancer treatment mainly included axillary lymph node dissection (OR =2.72,95％ CI=1.06-6.99,P=0.038),hypertension (OR=1.84,95％ CI=1.38-2.44,P=0.000),body mass index (OR =1.68,95％ CI=1.22-2.32,P =0.001),and radiotherapy (OR =1.65,95％ CI =1.20-2.25,P =0.002),while no significant associations were found for such factors as chemotherapy,age,number of positive lymph nodes,and number of dissected lymph nodes.Conclusions The incidence of upper extremity lymphedema is high among patients with breast cancer after treatment,and axillary lymph node dissection,hypertension,body mass index,and radiotherapy are the main risk factors for lymphedema after breast cancer treatment. Key words: Breast neoplasms; Upper extremity lymphedema; Risk factors
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".