MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SP55. Cognitive Symptoms and Lymphedema: Investigating the Connection

2025· article· en· W4409995220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shih‐Lun Lo, Melis Salman, Sonia Pandey, Wei‐Fan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphedemaConnection (principal bundle)CognitionMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineMathematicsCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Primary lymphedema is often misconstrued as a localized disorder; however, it represents a systemic condition characterized by systemic lymphatic insufficiency, which can progressively affect various body regions. In addition to its more recognized manifestations such as swelling in the extremities, trunk, and face, emerging evidence suggests that primary lymphedema also impacts cognitive function. This study aims to explore the relationship between primary lymphedema and cognitive function by evaluating brain fog symptoms and cognitive performance using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Brain Fog Scale (BFS). METHODS: A total of 81 patients diagnosed with primary lymphedema (67 females, 14 males, mean age: 44.72 ± 18.02) was enrolled in the study. Cognitive function was assessed using the MoCA, with a cut-off score of <26 indicating mild cognitive impairment. Brain fog symptoms were assessed using the BFS, which includes measures of mental fatigue, impaired cognitive acuity, and confusion. Comparative analysis was performed against a control group of 1046 individuals without lymphedema. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients who underwent surgical intervention (n=12) with sthose who did not (n=69). Independent t-tests were employed to evaluate differences between groups. RESULTS: Patients with primary lymphedema had a mean BFS score of 28.10 ± 18.92 and a mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score of 27.92 ± 2.28. When compared to the control group, lymphedema patients demonstrated significantly elevated levels of brain fog symptoms, including mental fatigue (10.58 ± 5.44 vs. 8.62 ± 4.63, p=0.0022), impaired cognitive acuity (10.57 ± 8.44 vs. 7.81 ± 6.18, p=0.0050), confusion (6.95 ± 6.56 vs. 5.18 ± 5.71, p=0.0203), and total BFS scores (28.10 ± 18.92 vs. 21.61 ± 17.04, p=0.0035). Notably, patients reporting subjective cognitive complaints (n=21) had significantly higher BFS scores across all domains compared to those without complaints (p<0.0001). Furthermore, patients who underwent surgical intervention reported significantly lower brain fog symptoms compared to those who did not have surgery in two key areas: impaired cognitive acuity (6.25 ± 5.22 vs. 11.32 ± 8.69, p=0.011) and total BFS score (19.75 ± 11.87 vs. 29.55 ± 19.59, p=0.027). CONCLUSION: Patients with primary lymphedema demonstrate substantial cognitive impairments when compared to control group. This thorough analysis underscores the considerable cognitive burden experienced by primary lymphedema patients, particularly among those with cognitive complaints or who have not undergone surgical intervention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenSame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207