Can a Made-for-Consumer Activity Monitor Assess Physical Activity in Adolescents and Young Adults After Lower Extremity Limb Salvage for Osseous Tumors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to test the validity of a consumer-oriented activity monitor in adolescents and young adults undergoing limb salvage for primary bone malignancies. METHODS: A cross-sectional population of participants with an average age of 16 (range 12 to 22) years produced 472 days of activity monitoring during 25 evaluations periods alongside patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Average daily steps ranged from 557 to 12,756 (mean=4711) and was moderately associated with the short-form (SF) 36 physical component subscale (r=0.46, P=0.04) as well as the SF6D health state utility measure (r=0.48, P=0.04), but not the SF36 mental component subscale (P=0.66) or Toronto extremity salvage score (P=0.07). Time from surgery was strongly correlated with average daily steps (r=0.7, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A made-for-consumer activity monitor provided real-world data regarding the outcome of adolescent and young adult limb salvage, and evidence of validity in this population. Such lower cost, user-friendly devices may facilitate assessment of free-living activity and allow novel comparisons of treatment strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-diagnostic.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".