A comparative analysis of functional outcomes in adolescents and young adults with lower‐extremity bone sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparison of functional mobility and quality of life is performed in patients with lower-extremity bone sarcoma following either amputation, limb-sparing surgery, or rotationplasty with four different types of outcome measures: (1) an objective functional mobility measure that requires patients to physically perform specific tasks, functional mobility assessment (FMA); (2) a clinician administered tool, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scale (MSTS); (3) a patient questionnaire, Toronto Extremity Salvage Scale (TESS); and (4) a health-related quality of life (HRQL) measure, Short Form-36 version 2 (SF-36v.2). PROCEDURE: This is a prospective multi-site study including 91 patients with lower-extremity bone sarcoma following amputation, limb-sparing surgery, or rotationplasty. One of three physical therapists administered the quality of life measure (SF-36v.2) as well as a battery of functional measures (FMA, MSTS, and TESS). RESULTS: Differences between patients who had amputation, limb-sparing surgery, or rotationplasty were consistently demonstrated by the FMA. Patients with limb sparing femur surgery performed better than those patients with an above the knee amputation but similarly to a small number of rotationplasty patients. Several of the more conventional self-report measures were shown to not have the discriminative capabilities of the FMA in these cohorts. CONCLUSION: In adolescents with lower-extremity bone sarcoma, it may be advantageous to consider the use of a combination of outcome measures, including the FMA, for objective functional mobility assessment along with the TESS for a subjective measure of disability and the SF-36v.2 for a quality-of-life measure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".