Physical functioning, pain and quality of life after amputation for musculoskeletal tumours
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients who have limb amputation for musculoskeletal tumours are a rare group of cancer survivors. This was a prospective cross-sectional survey of patients from five specialist centres for sarcoma surgery in England. Physical function, pain and quality of life (QOL) outcomes were collected after lower extremity amputation for bone or soft-tissue tumours to evaluate the survivorship experience and inform service provision. Of 250 patients, 105 (42%) responded between September 2012 and June 2013. From these, completed questionnaires were received from 100 patients with a mean age of 53.6 years (19 to 91). In total 60 (62%) were male and 37 (38%) were female (three not specified). The diagnosis was primary bone sarcoma in 63 and soft-tissue tumour in 37. A total of 20 tumours were located in the hip or pelvis, 31 above the knee, 32 between the knee and ankle and 17 in the ankle or foot. In total 22 had hemipelvectomy, nine hip disarticulation, 35 transfemoral amputation, one knee disarticulation, 30 transtibial amputation, two toe amputations and one rotationplasty. The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) differed by amputation level, with poorer scores at higher levels (p < 0.001). Many reported significant pain. In addition, TESS was negatively associated with increasing age, and pain interference scores. QOL for Cancer Survivors was significantly correlated with TESS (p < 0.001). This relationship appeared driven by pain interference scores. This unprecedented national survey confirms amputation level is linked to physical function, but not QOL or pain measures. Pain and physical function significantly impact on QOL. These results are helpful in managing the expectations of patients about treatment and addressing their complex needs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it