A prospective study on quality of life and functional outcome in children and adolescents after malignant bone tumor surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few longitudinal data are available concerning quality of life (QoL) and functioning of young patients undergoing surgical procedures for malignant bone tumors around the knee joint. Aim of the present study was to evaluate patients' quality of life, functional ability, and physical activity during a 2-year postoperative period. METHODS: This prospective study included patients who underwent surgery for a malignant bone tumor around the knee joint between 2004 and 2008. Assessments were done at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery. QoL was measured with the TNO-AZL Children's or Adult's Quality of Life Questionnaires (TACQOL and TAAQOL), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Bone tumor (Bt)-DUX; functional ability with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Scale (TESS), the 6-minute walk test (6 MWT) and four functional performance tests; and physical activity with the Baecke questionnaire and the ActiLog® activity monitor. Statistical analysis included linear mixed model analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (27 males, 17 females, mean age 14.9 (SD 4.8) years) were included, 27 (61%) underwent limb-salvage and 17 (39%) ablative surgery. Twenty patients were lost during the 2 years follow-up as a consequence of oncological complications. Over the first year, survivors showed significant improvement of QoL, functional ability and physical activity, except for the mental dimension of the SF-36 and the activity monitor results. Over the second year, these improvements were less pronounced. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 2 years after bone tumor surgery, survivors improved significantly with respect to QoL, functional ability, and physical activity levels.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".