Validation of a Danish version of the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score questionnaire for patients with sarcoma in the extremities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) questionnaire is a self-administered questionnaire designed to assess physical disability in patients having undergone surgery of the extremities. The aim of this study was to validate a Danish translation of the TESS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The TESS was translated according to international guidelines. A total of 22 consecutive patients attending the regular outpatient control programme were recruited for the study. To test their understanding of the questionnaires, they were asked to describe the meaning of five randomly selected questions from the TESS. The psychometric properties of the Danish version of TESS were tested for validity and reliability. To assess the test-retest reliability, the patients filled in an extra TESS questionnaire one week after they had completed the first one. RESULTS: Patients showed good understanding of the questionnaire. There was a good internal consistency for both the upper and lower questionnaire measured by Cronbach's alpha. A Bland-Altman plot showed acceptable limits of agreement for both questionnaires in the test-retest. There was also good intraclass correlation coefficients for both questionnaires. The validity expressed as Spearman's rank correlation coefficient comparing the TESS with the QLQ-C30 was 0.89 and 0.90 for the questionnaire on upper and lower extremities, respectively. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the Danish TESS showed good validity and reliability. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".