Internal and External Hemipelvectomy or Flail Hip in Patients with Sarcomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the quality-of-life of patients who have had an internal hemipelvectomy with and without (flail hip) prosthetic reconstruction and external hemipelvectomy. DESIGN: We reviewed the cases of 15 patients who had undergone either internal or external hemipelvectomy for tumor. Fifteen patients who were previously treated operatively with either a type II periacetabular internal (n = 5) or external (n = 10) hemipelvectomy were evaluated using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. There were 11 (73%) men and 4 (27%) women in the study, with a mean age at operation of 46.9 ± 18.0 yrs (range, 18-69 yrs). RESULTS: Follow-up was 30.6 ± 19.6 mos (range, 6-70 mos). Overall mean MSTS score was 45.2 (range, 6.7 to 83.3), and TESS score was 60.4 ± 16.1 (range, 31.8-88.0). The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey physical component score results were lower than the general population. TESS and MSTS were all positively correlated to physical component score. There were no significant influences of postsurgery time on MSTS, TESS, or physical component score. Age had a negative correlation with physical function. CONCLUSIONS: Quality-of-life and functional outcome were significantly reduced for patients with internal and external hemipelvectomies on the TESS, MSTS, and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey physical component scores.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".