The Safety and Efficacy of Physical Agents on Cancer Survivors: An Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: The Safety and Efficacy of Physical Agents on Cancer Survivors: An Update\nAuthors: Gentry Ensign, SPT1; Kathryn Flyte, SPT1; Michael Moore, SPT1; Katelyn Ratliff, SPT1; Ann Wilson, P.T., M.Ed., GCS1\nAffiliations: 1. School of Physical Therapy, University of Puget Sound\nTheory: Cancer patients are often referred to physical therapy to treat impairments associated with cancer, its treatment, and the disease progression. Physical therapists sometimes use physical agents as part of a complete rehabilitation program for the purpose of decreasing pain, increasing strength, and facilitating tissue healing while avoiding possible malignant tumor growth. The benefits of physical therapy modalities in cancer treatment has not been well defined, but have potential to improve quality of life, functional abilities, and participation for these patients. Currently, many physical agents are contraindicated in the treatment of cancer patients because of potential concerns that they may increase the growth or rate of growth of malignant tumors. The lack of clinically-applicable and high-quality studies that support or refute these theories makes the use of some physical therapy modalities in the treatment of cancer patients controversial. For this reason and due to the changes in contemporary modality use over the last fifteen years, an update of the current literature is warranted. The purpose of this literature review is to update an already-existing literature review by Pfalzer in 2001 discussing the use of modalities in treatment of cancer-related impairments.\nReferences: Kozanoglu E, Basaran S, Paydas S, Sarpel T. Efficacy of pneumatic compression and low-level laser therapy in the treatment of postmastectomy lymphoedema: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(2):117-124. Hurlow A, Bennet MI, Robb KA, Johnson MI, Simpson KH, Oxberry SG, Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012; 3: 1-26. Cheville AL, Basford JR. Role of Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Agents in the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Pain. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(16):1691-1702. Majithia N, Smith TJ, Coyne PJ, et al. Scrambler Therapy for the management of chronic pain. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:2807-2814.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".