Update to the Canadian clinical practice guideline for best-practice management of breast cancer–related lymphedema: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the more frequent complications following treatment for breast cancer, lymphedema is a substantial swelling of the arm, breast and chest wall that occurs on the side where lymph nodes were removed. The aim of this work is to update recommendations on the prevention, diagnosis and management of lymphedema related to breast cancer. METHODS: We present the protocol for an update of the 2001 clinical practice guideline on lymphedema from the Steering Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. We will use a patient-oriented research approach with a focus on self-management and the positive health model to inform the updated guideline development. The methods proposed will be undertaken with consideration of the standards outlined in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. The literature will be appraised by evaluating existing guidelines from other countries, the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses and direct evidence from clinical studies. We will manage competing interests according to Guidelines International Network principles. Recommendations will be presented using an actionable statement format and will be linked to the level of evidence along with any relevant considerations used in formulation. A draft of the guideline will be produced by the steering committee then sent out to international experts and stakeholder groups for feedback. INTERPRETATION: The primary benefit of this clinical guideline will be to improve the quality of care of women with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Findings will be disseminated at national and international conferences and through webinars and educational videos hosted on the websites of the supporting organizations.
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 | 0.102 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.019 |
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".