Danish translation and cultural adaptation of the LYMPH-Q upper extremity lymphedema worry and impact on work scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) significantly affects health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). The LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity (UE) Module is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to assess HRQL in individuals with BCRL. Recently, two new scales, Lymphedema Worry and Impact on Work, were developed to expand the module’s comprehensiveness. This study aimed to perform a translation and cultural adaptation of these scales for use in Denmark. Methods The translation process followed best-practice guidelines from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The methodology included a forward and back translation, an expert panel review, and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients to ensure linguistic and cultural equivalence. Results The forward translations revealed eight minor discrepancies in terminology, which were resolved through discussion. The back translation identified one item requiring refinement to align with the original English meaning. The expert panel participants suggested modifications regarding three items to enhance cultural relevance. Cognitive debriefing interviews with patients ( n = 10) confirmed that the translated items were clear and comprehensible. The final proof reading led to minor modifications which resulted in the final Danish version of the LYMPH-Q Lymphedema Worry and Impact on Work scales. Conclusions The rigorous translation and cultural adaptation process resulted in a conceptually equivalent Danish version of the LYMPH-Q UE module Lymphedema Worry and Impact on Work scales. These scales will provide valuable insight into the occupational and psychological burdens of BCRL among Danish patients. Level of evidence Not ratable.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".