MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071928884 · doi:10.12968/ijtr.2014.21.8.374

Evaluation and model of rehabilitation for primary malignant bone sarcoma patients after limb salvage

2014· article· en· W2071928884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzy Hudson, Katayoon Bamdad, Tim Briggs

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationReferralMedicinePsychological interventionPhysical therapyBone SarcomaSarcomaFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims It has long been suspected that the rehabilitation available to patients with primary malignant bone sarcoma (PMBS) is not always adequate and appropriate to their needs. The National Specialised Commissioning Group (NSCG) commissioned the 2012–2013 Quality Improvement Development and Innovation Scheme (QIDIS) project (rehabilitation programme) to review the current rehabilitation services available to the PMBS patient groups at all five bone sarcoma specialist centres in England. Methods The 220 participating PMBS patients were provided with questionnaires, and clinicians at the participating centres were interviewed face-to-face. Patients were analysed in groups: upper limb and lower limb, and in the subgroups major and minor surgery. The groups were compared according to their preferences for rehabilitation interventions, the additional rehabilitation post-surgery that they felt was or would have been beneficial, and by their Toronto Extremity Salvage Scores (TESS). Results Out of the 220 questionnaires provided, 136 questionnaires were returned (a 62% response rate). This study identified the lack of the following factors to be associated with PMBS patients' rehabilitation and functional outcomes: equitable access to rehabilitation treatments; suitable rehabilitation admission; allied health professional (AHP) clinical progress reviews; a reliable and equitable referral system with robust referral criteria; a rehabilitation case coordinator; a nationally accepted functional outcome measure; and patients' involvement in the management of their rehabilitation to achieve the best possible outcome. Conclusions This study identified gaps in the current rehabilitation services for PMBS patients and makes several recommendations. The authors designed a postoperative model of rehabilitation, which identifies a number of target areas that may improve current rehabilitation services and enable rehabilitation professionals to assess a PMBS patient's needs to identify the most suitable rehabilitation programme for them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapy and RehabilitationSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207