Impact of Surgical Intervention on Quality of Life in Patients With Spinal Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVE: To assess Health-Related Quality of Life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Increasing life expectancy of patients with spinal metastases has resulted in greater interest in overall quality of life, including pain and neurologic impairment. To assess the overall risks and benefits of surgical intervention, the overall impact of each on the overall health status must be assessed. METHODS: All patients who presented to a single institution with bony spinal metastases requiring surgical intervention were eligible. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: previous surgery for spinal metastases, primary tumors of the spine, and inability to fill out the questionnaires. Patients completed an EORTC QLQ-C30, the HUI-3, the EQ-5D, visual analog pain, and an ECOG functional assessment. at five points: before surgery and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year post surgery. RESULTS: Of 96 patients who presented to the hospital, 85 were enrolled in the study. Average age was 58.6 years (range, 20.3-80.7 years) with 47 male patients; 50% survival as 39.1 weeks. Maximal and average VAS pain levels showed a statistically significant (P < 0.00001) improvement from preoperative to all postoperative time points. Only the QLQ-C30 global health status showed a statistically significant improvement from preoperative to the 6-week (P = 0.017), 3-month (P = 0.039), and 6-month (P = 0.013) time points. There was a statistically significant correlation between baseline global health status and survival time (P = 0.041). Overall distribution of HUI-3 utility calculated Quality of Life Adjusted Years (QALY) during the 1-year postoperative period showed a bimodal distribution with peaks at 0.1 and 0.7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for patients with spinal metastases offers decreased pain and improved quality of life with low rates of surgical complications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".