The Surgical Management of Primary Tumorsof the Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively validate the application of appendicular surgical oncology principles to the treatment of primary bone tumors of the spine at a quaternary care spine center using local recurrence, survival, and health-related quality of life as outcome measures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is clear evidence that violating the margins of a sarcoma or other malignancy during surgical resection will risk local recurrence and diminish overall survival. Previous publications have retrospectively demonstrated this oncologically sound approach to spine tumor management to be internally valid. The external validity or limited generalizability has not been assessed. METHODS: Included were all patients who underwent en bloc surgical resection of a primary tumor of the spine between January 1994 and November 2003, at the authors' institution. Patients were uniformly staged before surgery and baseline demographic and surgical variables were recorded, as well as a cross-sectional evaluation of generic health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (12 males and 14 females) were eligible for the study. Average age was 42 (range 16 to 70). There were 19 malignant tumors and 7 benign. There are 20 surviving patients with an average follow-up of 41.5 months (range 6 to 111 months), 15 of whom had malignant tumors. None of these patients have evidence of local recurrence, and one has evidence of systemic disease. The health-related quality of life, using the SF-36, shows acceptable morbidity of these procedures (physical component summary = 37.73 +/- 11.52, MCS = 51.69 +/- 9.54). CONCLUSIONS: Principles of wide surgical resection, commonly applied in appendicular oncology, can and should be used for the treatment of primary bone tumors of the spine with anticipated acceptable morbidity and satisfactory survival.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".