The Pediatric Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (pTESS): Validation of a Self-reported Functional Outcomes Tool for Children with Extremity Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The physical function of children with sarcoma after surgery has not been studied explicitly. This paucity of research is partly because of the lack of a sufficiently sensitive pediatric functional measure. The goal of this study was to establish and validate a standardized measure of physical function in pediatric patients with extremity tumors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the best format and content for new upper- and lower-extremity measures of physical function in the pediatric population? (2) Do the new measures exhibit floor and/or ceiling effects, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability? (3) Are the new measures valid? METHODS: In Phase 1, interviews with 17 consecutive children and adolescents with bone tumors were conducted to modify the format and content of draft versions of the pediatric Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (pTESS). In Phase 2, the pTESS was formally translated into French. In Phase 3, 122 participants between 7 and 17.9 years old with malignant or benign-aggressive bone tumors completed the limb-specific measure on two occasions. Older adolescents also completed the adult TESS. Floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Feedback from interviews resulted in the removal, addition, and modification of draft items, and the pTESS-Leg and pTESS-Arm questionnaires were finalized. Both versions exhibited no floor or ceiling effects and high internal consistency (α > 0.92). The test-retest reliability was excellent for the pTESS-Leg (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97) and good for the pTESS-Arm (ICC = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96). Known-group validity (ability to discriminate between groups) was demonstrated by lower mean pTESS-Leg scores for participants using gait aids or braces (mean = 68; SD = 21) than for those who did not (mean = 87; SD = 11; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between pTESS arm scores among respondents using a brace (n = 5; mean = 73; SD = 11) and those without (n = 22; mean = 83; SD = 19; p = 0.13). To evaluate construct validity, we tested a priori hypotheses. The duration since chemotherapy correlated moderately with higher pTESS-Leg scores (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) but not with pTESS-Arm scores (r = 0.1; p = 0.80), and the duration since tumor resection correlated moderately with higher pTESS-Leg scores (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) but not pTESS-Arm scores (r = 0.2; p = 0.4). Higher VAS scores (that is, it was harder to do things) antecorrelated with both pTESS versions (pTESS-Leg: r = -0.7; p < 0.001; pTESS-Arm: r = -0.8; p < 0.001). To assess criterion validity, we compared the pTESS with the current "gold standard" (adult TESS). Among adolescents, strong correlations were observed between the TESS and pTESS-Leg (r = 0.97, p < 0.001) and pTESS-Arm (r = 0.9, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Both pTESS versions exhibited no floor or ceiling effects and had high internal consistency. The pTESS-Leg demonstrated excellent reliability and validity, and the pTESS-Arm demonstrated good reliability and reasonable validity. The pTESS is recommended for cross-sectional evaluation of self-reported physical function in pediatric patients with bone tumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, outcome measurement development.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".