Limb-sparing surgery preserves more function than amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the long-term functional outcome in 118 patients treated for osteosarcoma or Ewing's sarcoma in the extremities a minimum of five years after treatment. We also examined if impaired function influenced their quality of life and ability to work. The function was evaluated according to the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Quality of life was assessed by using the Short Form-36 (SF-36). The mean age at follow-up was 31 years (15 to 57) and the mean follow-up was for 13 years (6 to 22). A total of 67 patients (57%) initially had limb-sparing surgery, but four had a secondary amputation. The median MSTS score was 70% (17% to 100%) and the median TESS was 89% (43% to 100%). The amputees had a significantly lower MSTS score than those with limb-sparing surgery (p < 0.001), but there was no difference for the TESS. Tumour localisation above knee level resulted in significantly lower MSTS scores and TESS (p = 0.003 and p = 0.02, respectively). There were no significant differences in quality of life between amputees and those with limb-sparing surgery except in physical functioning. Of the patients 11% (13) did not work or study. In multivariate analysis, amputation, tumour location above the knee and having muscular pain were associated with low physical function. We conclude that most of the bone tumour survivors managed well after adjustment to their physical limitations. A total of 105 are able to work and have an overall good quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".