Satisfaction After Joint-preservation Surgery in Patients With Musculoskeletal Knee Sarcoma Based on Various Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: At our institute, we prioritize joint-preservation whenever possible in cases of musculoskeletal knee sarcoma. This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction after joint-preservation surgery using different scales. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 62 patients with musculoskeletal knee sarcoma. We analyzed the responders' data based on the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), and three component scores (physical, mental, and role/social) of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey according to whether they belonged to patients in the joint-preservation or in the joint-replacement groups. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 67.7%. MSTS and TESS scores were higher in the patients in the joint-preservation group than in the joint-replacement group, although the differences lacked statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Better physical outcomes improve patient satisfaction, as demonstrated by the high satisfaction in the group with joint-preservation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".