Knee extension strength and post-operative functional prediction in quadriceps resection for soft-tissue sarcoma of the thigh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to predict the knee extension strength and post-operative function in quadriceps resection for soft-tissue sarcoma of the thigh. METHODS: A total of 18 patients (14 men, four women) underwent total or partial quadriceps resection for soft-tissue sarcoma of the thigh between 2002 and 2014. The number of resected quadriceps was surveyed, knee extension strength was measured with the Biodex isokinetic dynamometer system (affected side/unaffected side) and relationships between these were examined. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score and the Short Form 8 were used to evaluate post-operative function and examine correlations with extension strength. The cutoff value for extension strength to expect good post-operative function was also calculated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Extension strength decreased when the number of resected quadriceps increased (p < 0.001), and was associated with lower MSTS score, TESS and EQ-5D (p = 0.004, p = 0.005, p = 0.006, respectively). Based on the functional evaluation scales, the cutoff value of extension strength was 56.2%, the equivalent to muscle strength with resection of up to two muscles. CONCLUSION: Good post-operative results can be expected if at least two quadriceps muscles are preserved.Cite this article: A. Tanaka, Y. Yoshimura, K. Aoki, M. Kito, M. Okamoto, S. Suzuki, T. Momose, H. Kato. Knee extension strength and post-operative functional prediction in quadriceps resection for soft-tissue sarcoma of the thigh. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:232-238. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000631.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".