Systematic review and meta‐analysis of objective and subjective quality of life among pediatric, adolescent, and young adult bone tumor survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric, adolescent, and young adult survivors of bone sarcomas are at risk for poor quality of life (QOL). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the literature describing QOL in this population and differences in QOL based on local control procedures. PROCEDURE: Included studies described ≥5 patients <25 years old who had completed local control treatment for bone sarcoma, defined QOL as a main outcome, and measured it with a validated instrument. Data extraction and quality assessments were conducted with standardized tools. Meta-analyses compared QOL based on surgical procedure (limb-sparing vs. amputation) and were stratified by assessment type (objective physical function, clinician-assessed disability, patient-reported disability, and patient-reported QOL). Effect sizes were reported as the standard mean difference when multiple instruments were used within a comparison and weighted mean difference otherwise. All were weighted by inverse variance and modeled with random effects. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 452 unique manuscripts were included in qualitative syntheses, eight of which were included in meta-analyses. Manuscripts were heterogeneous with respect to included patient populations (age, tumor type, time since treatment) and QOL instruments. Prospective studies suggested that QOL improves over time, and that female sex and older age at diagnosis are associated with poor QOL. Meta-analyses showed no differences in outcomes between patients who underwent limb-sparing versus amputation for local control. CONCLUSION: QOL studies among children and AYAs with bone sarcoma are remarkably diverse, making it difficult to detect trends in patient outcomes. Future research should focus on standardized QOL instruments and interpretations.
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 | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".