Function and Health Status in Surgically Treated Bone Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In a prospective study, we evaluated if surgery substantially improved functional and quality of life outcomes in patients with nonspinal bone metastases. Sixty-seven patients were followed up prospectively. The Short Form-36, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 form, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993 form, and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score were administered preoperatively and 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Fifty percent of the patients had pathologic fractures. Intramedullary nailing was done in 36 patients, prosthetic replacement was done in 24 patients, and plating was done in five patients. The average postoperative survival was 8 months. At 6 weeks, 13 patients had died and seven were lost to followup. Twenty-one percent of patients had complications, although only 4.5% needed additional surgery. The patients' Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 form, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993 form, and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score scores improved at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. There were no improvements in the Short Form-36 mental and physical summary scales of the patients. The number of patients using pain medication did not decrease. Patients had functional improvements after surgical treatment of bone metastases, even patients with a limited life expectancy. Future prospective studies should anticipate a high rate of attrition with this population from death and loss to followup. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, Level I (high quality prospective study-all patients were enrolled at the same point in their disease with > or = 80% followup of enrolled patients). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".