Dutch translation and cultural adaptation of the LYMPH-Q, a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast cancer-related lymphedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity module is a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed to assess patient outcomes of breast cancer-related arm lymphedema (BCRL). Content for the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module was developed from the extensive input of patients and experts in the field of breast surgery and breast cancer-related lymphedema. Rasch Measurement Theory analysis was used to assess psychometric properties. The aim of this study was to perform a Dutch translation and cultural adaptation of the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module. Methods The translation process was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).The process included two forward translations, two back translations, and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients with BCRL. Results Comparison of the two forward translations showed that the translations for most items (n = 60; 88.2%) were conceptually consistent between the two translators. Translations of the remaining items were reviewed and discussed until consensus was reached. Three items in the back translation had a different meaning when compared to the original English version and required re-translation. The resultant Dutch version of the LYMPH-Q was tested in a series of cognitive debriefing interviews with seven patients and showed good content validity. Conclusions The translation and cultural adaptation process resulted in a conceptually equivalent Dutch version of the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module. This new PROM can now be used in clinical practice and research settings to evaluate outcomes in patients with BCRL. 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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".