Psychological resilience in adolescent and young adult survivors of lower extremity bone tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The psychosocial outcomes of young adult survivors of childhood bone tumors are not well known. This study: (a) examined perceived social support (SS) and benefit-finding (BF) with respect to surgical intervention, gender, and age; (b) compared SS and psychological outcomes to normative values; and (c) examined the relationship between these social and psychological outcomes and sexual functioning. PROCEDURE: Twenty-eight participants (18-32 years) completed outcome-specific questionnaires for SS, BF, depression, self-worth, and sexual functioning. Surgical intervention was grouped into limb sparing (LS; allograft-fusion and endoprosthesis) and ablative procedures (AMP; amputation or Van Nes rotationplasty). Age at study was grouped into ≤25 or ≥26 years of age. RESULTS: Compared to normative values, survivors reported significantly less depressive symptoms (P = 0.005), and higher self-evaluations of intellectual capabilities (P = 0.009). No significant differences in SS and BF were found between surgical and age groups. Males perceived significantly higher SS than females (P = 0.027). Significant positive correlations were found between perceived SS and sexual functioning (r = 0.397), sexual experiences (r = 0.423), and satisfaction with sexual relationships (r = 0.408). Negative correlation was found between global SS and depression scores (r = -0.397). Similar correlations were found with the subscales of the SS, depression, and self-worth measures. BF was significantly positively correlated only to SS (r = 0.552). CONCLUSIONS: Bone tumor survivors, particularly males, demonstrated remarkable psychosocial resiliency with SS possibly serving as a protective factor for survivors' psychological and sexual functioning.
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) | 0.002 | 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".