Patient expectations for surgical outcome in extremity soft tissue sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients' expectations regarding their surgical recovery can significantly influence health outcomes. This study examines the relationship between pre-treatment outcome expectations and post-operative function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma (ESTS). Additionally, we evaluate predictors of patients' outcome expectations. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 157 ESTS patients (62% male, mean age 56 years) treated with limb-preservation surgery between January 2001 and February 2005. Associations between patients' outcome expectations and 1-year function and HRQoL outcomes were evaluated using multivariable regression analyses. Factors predicting patient expectations were investigated using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients expecting a difficult recovery and patients with uncertain expectations had worse functional outcomes than patients anticipating an easy recovery. Education, dispositional optimism, tumor location, AJCC stage, and baseline function/HRQoL were significant predictors of patient expectations. For example, patients with primary school education more frequently reported uncertain expectations regarding length of recovery (OR = 20; 95% CI, 3.7-108.6) and complications (OR = 12; 95% CI, 2.7-58.0) than patients with post-secondary education. CONCLUSIONS: Patient expectations significantly influence functional outcome in ESTS. Patients at risk for uncertain expectations may benefit from additional, individualized education so as to optimize their treatment outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".