EVALUATION OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS TREATED FOR METASTATIC DISEASE OF THE PROXIMAL FEMUR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with metastatic bone lesions have a limited life expectancy. These metastatic lesions compromise the proximal femur, and fractures are quite common. The survival of these patients depends on the behavior of the primary tumor. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of life of patients with extensive metastatic lesion of the proximal femur with pathological or imminent fracture, treated with non-conventional endoprosthesis. METHODS: From May 2008 to August 2012, twenty-five (25) patients with bone metastases of the proximal femur, with pathological or imminent fracture were recruited into this study. These patients had survived for at least six weeks after surgery and the TESS questionnaire (Toronto Extremity Salvage Score) was administered. RESULTS: The final score of the TESS was an average of 57 points (SD 23.78 points). There was no significant difference in TESS values considering: sex, presence of fracture, or site of the bone lesion. CONCLUSION: The TESS questionnaire provides information about the function and quality of life of patients with malignant tumors of the lower limbs, from the patient's perspective. The results can be considered positive, when compared to the limited life expectancy and complexity of this group of patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".