MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385829603 · doi:10.1089/lrb.2022.0095

Development of Pressure Sensors to Help Support Community Lymphedema Monitoring: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4385829603 on OpenAlexaff
Omnia Rajab, Emily Armstrong, Martin Ferguson-Pell

Bibliographic record

VenueLymphatic Research and Biology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphedemaWearable computerScopusMedicineData extractionMEDLINEComputer scienceBreast cancerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCancerEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.528
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.026 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLymphatic Research and BiologySame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207