MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337248578 · doi:10.1002/jso.24247

Patient factors affecting the Toronto extremity salvage score following limb salvage surgery for bone and soft tissue tumors

2016· article· en· W2337248578 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catriona Heaver, Antonia Isaacson, Jonathan Gregory, Gill Cribb, Paul Cool

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLesionSoft tissueSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS) assesses physical function following limb salvage for bone and soft tissue sarcoma. In 2012, Clayer et al. showed increasing age affects the TESS score in normal individuals. The purpose of this study was to investigate what other patient factors affect outcome? METHODS: We reviewed the TESS scores, age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, smoking status, and social deprivation score of patients who have undergone limb salvage in our unit. Data were extracted from our tumor database and reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon pairwise test and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-eight TESS scores were found for 198 patients. Data were analyzed separating upper limb (UL) and lower limb (LL) tumors. In the UL group, being female (P = 0.01) and having a bone lesion (P < 0.001) were associated with a lower TESS score. In the LL group, being female (P = 0.04), increasing age (P = 0.002), having a bone lesion (P < 0.001), increasing BMI (P < 0.001), and smoking (P = 0.005) were associated with a lower TESS score. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis has shown that female sex, increasing age and BMI, smoking and having a bone lesion have an adverse effect on physical function following limb salvage, as indicated by the mean TESS score. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:804-810. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207