MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lower extremity lymphoedema: some recent literature highlights

2022· article· en· W4226018374 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Greener

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Community Nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyLymphedemaEpidemiologyHealth professionalsHealth careInternal medicineCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lower extremity lymphoedema is common after many cancers. Nevertheless, epidemiological estimates of the prevalence of lower extremity lymphoedema vary widely. A recent study, however, clarified the rates in women with colorectal, endometrial and ovarian malignancies: about one third self-reported lower extremity lymphoedema. The study also confirmed that lower extremity lymphoedema can markedly undermine physical functioning. Some patients, however, seem to be at especially high-risk of developing lower extremity lymphoedema, such as those who undergo extensive lymphadenectomy. Moreover, until recently, few clinical trials assessed treatment benefits from the patient's perspective. A recent study explored the goals and benefits that matter most to patients, which may help healthcare professionals individualise management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Community NursingSame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207