Quality of Life in Surgical Treatment of Metastatic Spine Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Overall quality of life after surgical management of metastatic disease of the spine was prospectively assessed using a validated global health status quality-of-life instrument-the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy of surgery in patients with metastatic spinal disease with respect to quality of life. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of spinal metastases is palliative and is aimed at improving quality of life at an acceptable risk. Although previous studies have evaluated physical outcomes, improvements in pain, and neurologic function after surgery, a multidimensional assessment of quality of life is more relevant in the palliative patient. METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases were prospectively evaluated. Pre- and postoperative assessments were performed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. The surgical procedure consisted of decompression and instrumented stabilization. RESULTS: After surgery, the largest improvement was noted in the domain of pain (P < 0.00001). There were also significant improvements noted in the domains of tiredness (P = 0.004), nausea (P = 0.01), anxiety (P = 0.006), drowsiness (P = 0.044), appetite (P = 0.02), and well-being (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates that in the appropriate patient, surgical management brings about a positive effect on the overall quality of life in patients with spinal metastases. The greatest benefit occurred in the reduction of a patient's level of pain.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it