Cited by 49Lymphatic System and DiseasesCancer survivorship and careBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Developing and validating a prediction model for lymphedema detection in breast cancer survivors

Wei, Xiaoxia, Lu, Qian, Jin, Sanli, Li, Fenglian, Zhao, Quanping, Cui, Ying, Jin, Shuai, Cao, Yiwei +1 more·2021·European Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract

Purpose Early detection and intervention of lymphedema is essential for improving the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. Previous studies have shown that patients have symptoms such as arm tightness and arm heaviness before experiencing obvious limb swelling. Thus, this study aimed to develop a symptom-warning model for the early detection of breast cancer-related lymphedema.Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Beijing between April 2017 and December 2018. A total of 24 lymphedema-associated symptoms were identified as candidate predictors. Circumferential measurements were used to diagnose lymphedema. The data were randomly split into training and validation sets with a 7:3 ratio to derive and evaluate six machine learning models. Both the discrimination and calibration of each model were assessed on the validation set.Results A total of 533 patients were included in the study. The logistic regression model showed the best performance for early detection of lymphedema, with AUC = 0.889 (0.840-0.938), sensitivity = 0.771, specificity = 0.883, accuracy = 0.825, and Brier scores = 0.141. Calibration was also acceptable. It has been deployed as an open-access web application, allowing users to estimate the probability of lymphedema individually in real time. The application can be found at https://apredictiontoolforlymphedema.shinyapps.io/dynnomapp/.Conclusion The symptom-warning model developed by logistic regression performed well in the early detection of lymphedema. Integrating this model into an open-access web application is beneficial to patients and healthcare providers to monitor lymphedema status in real-time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejon.2021.102023

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, X., Lu, Q., Jin, S., Li, F., Zhao, Q., Cui, Y., Jin, S., Cao, Y., & Fu, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Venue
European Journal of Oncology Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
54
Pages
102023
ISSN
1462-3889 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3198252291
Cited by
49
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Oncology Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (72174011)
  • Peking University Health Science Center (BMU20160517)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lymphatic System and Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
breast cancer-related lymphedema, early detection, breast cancer survivors, lymphedema symptoms, prediction model, logistic regression, circumferential measurement, web-based prediction tool
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Breast Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Lymphedema, Quality of Life

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review