Eliminating the Burden of Lymphedema in Cancer Patients Requiring Nodal Dissections Using Prophylactic Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction – A Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR), performed concurrently with nodal dissection, has shown promise in reducing the rates of lymphedema in patients with various types of cancers. Herein, we detail the case of a 42-year-old patient who underwent nodal dissection in the management of their melanoma. This patient underwent ILR at the time of lymph node dissection of the right axilla and was followed for 24 months. Circumferential measurements of both the operative and non-operative limbs, as well as lymphedema-specific quality of life questionnaire (LYMQOL) data, were collected at each appointment. Our patient developed lymphedema transiently at 3 months which had resolved by the 6-month follow-up and maintained favorable measures of quality of life over the course of 2 years. This novel approach has yet to be implemented as a standard of care in Canada. Such an outcome would be overwhelmingly positive for our cancer population, and on our health-care system overall.
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 | 0.000 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".