Advanced translation and cultural adaption of the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module from English to Danish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To better quantify the impact that breast cancer-related arm lymphedema (BCRL) has on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is needed. The LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module was recently developed for patients with BCRL. The aim of this study was to perform an advanced translation and culturally adapt the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module for use in Denmark. Methods The LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module was translated into Danish according to the guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The process included two forward and one back translation, an expert panel meeting, and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. The focus of the translation was to develop a Danish version that used appropriate patient-friendly language while maintaining the meaning of the items, instructions and response options. Results The two forward translations resulted in minor differences in terminology. These discrepancies were discussed among the translators and a harmonized Danish version 1 was achieved. Comparison of the back translation to the original English version identified 14 items/instructions/response options that required re-translation. Subsequently, experts helped to identify and resolve the language for 10 items/instructions/response options that did not maintain the same meaning as the English version. Participants in the cognitive debriefing interviews did not report any difficulties with understanding the items/instructions/response options. Conclusions The translation and cultural adaption process led to the development of a conceptually equivalent Danish version of the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module. Level of Evidence: Not gradable
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".