Development of Pressure Sensors to Help Support Community Lymphedema Monitoring: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer-related lymphedema is a condition occurring after a partial or full mastectomy, where there is a buildup of interstitial fluid in the body, particularly in the upper limb. There is a lack of at-home sensors that can help monitor the progression of lymphedema. The purpose of this scoping review is to gather relevant information on sensors for remote lymphedema monitoring. A literature search of Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and BMC databases yielded 96 studies. A total of six studies were selected for data extraction. Data were extracted from each study and organized into tables for analysis. A total of six different devices were mentioned in the six studies included in the scoping review, divided into wearable and nonwearable sensors. Nonwearable sensors were more likely to be adaptable for remote sensing as they were further along in development and commercially available on the market. Nonwearable sensors are more developed than wearable sensors for the purpose of remote lymphedema monitoring. This review advocates further development and validation of sensors for lymphedema management, particularly for remote monitoring and health assessments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".