Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of surgery in patients with spinal metastases with respect to quality of life and oncology prognosis.Methods From March 2004 to January 2009,36 consecutive patients underwent anterior or posterior decompression and internal fixation for spinal metastases were evaluated.Pre-and postoperative quality of life of the patients were evaluated with the Edmonton symptom assessment scale(ESAS).Results All patients survived 6-36 months until the final follow-up(July 2009),the average survival time was 15.2 months with 8 patients still alive at the final follow-up.The neurological function was obviously improved in 68% cases.After surgery,the total score of the ESAS significantly improved in 30 successfully evaluated patients,and the largest improvement was noted in the domain of pain.There were also significant improvements noted in the domains of well-being,tiredness,appetite,anxiety,nausea and drowsiness.But no obvious changes in terms of depression and shortness of breath.Conclusion For patients with solitary spinal metastasis,low-malignant primary tumor and the Tokuhashi revised score of 12-15 points,surgical management brings about a positive effect on the overall quality of life,and the greatest benefit occurrs in the pain reduction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".