Evaluating physical function in an adolescent bone tumor population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survival rates for patients with bone tumors have increased dramatically over the past few decades. Unfortunately, many patients face functional limitations resulting from disease management, but there is little evidence regarding physical functioning in adolescents with bone tumors. This lack is largely due to the absence of a standardized measure for evaluating adolescent sarcoma physical functioning. This review discusses considerations in searching for a measure of adolescent physical functioning, evaluates measures previously used in assessing functional outcome in young sarcoma patients, reviews self-report measures of pediatric physical functioning, and makes recommendations for future research. PROCEDURE: Electronic databases were searched for studies published between 1980 and 2004. Studies examining physical functioning in adolescent sarcoma patients and those describing measures of pediatric physical functioning were included. RESULTS: The study includes measures previously used in the adolescent bone tumor literature (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, Mankin, Groningen Activity Restriction Scale, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score [TESS]), and three measures of pediatric physical function (Functional Disability Inventory, Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument [PODCI], Activities Scale for Kids [ASK]). The TESS, PODCI, and ASK each met at least four of the outlined applicability and feasibility components. CONCLUSION: The search for a measure of physical functioning for adolescent sarcoma patients requires an exploration of many developmental and measurement issues. Based on the sensibility review presented, the TESS, PODCI, and ASK are recommended for further evaluation of content and of the measurement properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness, prior to their use in evaluating adolescent sarcoma patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".