Functional Evaluation in Distal Femoral Endoprosthetic Replacement for Bone Sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multicenter study of successfully treated patients (mean age, 36.7 years) with a minimum 1-year followup (average, 35.4 months) after distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement for bone sarcoma was done using the 1987 and 1993 versions of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, the Short Form-36, and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score functional evaluation criteria. Fifty-six patients (28 women and 28 men) fulfilled the criteria. Thirty-one Kotz prostheses (fixed hinge, uncemented) and 25 Modular Replacement System Prostheses (rotating hinge, cemented) were used. Thirty-five patients walked without aids, 19 used a cane, and two used crutches or a walker. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 mean score was 28.1. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993 mean score was 80.4. The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score mean was 81.6. The Short Form-36 Physical Component Score had a mean of 43.2 and Mental Component Score mean of 54.2. The two groups of implants were comparable, except for the length of bone resection. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patient age, existence of a pathologic fracture, and type of prosthesis all significantly accounted for differences in functional outcome as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993, the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Score scales. Although both implants provided satisfactory function, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993 and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score results were significantly better with the Modular Replacement System prosthesis. The effect of possible differences among surgeons or institutions was not addressed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".