MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2172468492

FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME IN SARCOMA MANAGEMENT: AMPUTATION VS. LIMB SALVAGE

2004· article· en· W2172468492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. S. Bell, J.S. Wunder, Aileen M. Davis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmputationMedicineSoft tissue sarcomaSoft tissueSarcomaSurgeryLesionPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduciton In our experience, amputation is rarely indicated in osteosarcoma. Amputation is more frequently required in soft tissue sarcoma for the following reasons: 1) recurrent tumour in previously radiated field; 2) composite tissue involvement of soft tissue, bone, vessels and nerves; 3) size of lesion. We have measured functional outcome in bone and soft tissue sarcoma using a combination of clinimetric measures describing impairment and patient determined measures assessing disability ([1][1],[2][2]). Methods In a matched case-control study ([3][3]), 12 patients with amputation were matched with 24 patients treated by limb-sparing surgery on the following variables: age, gender, length of follow-up, bone versus soft-tissue tumor, anatomic site, and treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy. End points included the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), a measure of physical disability; the Shortform-36 (SF-36), a generic health status measure; and the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL), a measure of handicap. Results Mean TESS score for the patients with amputations was 74.5 versus 85.1 for the limb-sparing patients. (p = .15). Only the physical function subscale of the SF-36 showed statistically significant differences, with means of 45 and 71.1 for the amputation versus limb-sparing groups, respectively (p = .03). The RNL for the amputation group was 84.4 versus 97 for the limb-sparing group (p = .05). Seven of the 12 patients with amputations experienced ongoing difficulty with the soft tissues overlying their stumps. There was a trend toward increased disability for those in the amputation group versus those in the limb-sparing group, with the amputation group showing significantly higher levels of handicap. Conclusions These data suggest that the differences in disability between amputation and limb-sparing patients are smaller than anticipated. The differences may be more notable in measuring handicap. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→