Soft Tissue Sarcoma of Lower Extremity: Functional Outcome and Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have focused on patient-related factors in analyzing long-term functional outcome and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with postoperative lower extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate factors associated with postoperative functional outcome and HRQoL in patients with lower extremity STS. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed in a tertiary referral center using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and 15 Dimension (15D) measures. Functional outcome and HRQoL data were collected prospectively. All patients were treated by a multidisciplinary team according to a written treatment protocol. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients who had undergone limb-salvage surgery were included. Depending on the outcome measure used, 19-51% of patients were completely asymptomatic and 13-14% of patients had an unimpaired HRQoL. The mean score for TESS, 15D mobility score, and QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning scale were 86, 0.83, and 75, respectively, while the mean score for 15D was 0.88, and 73 for QLQ-C30 QoL. Lower functional outcome was statistically significantly associated with higher age, higher body mass index (BMI), and the need for reconstructive surgery and radiotherapy, while lower HRQoL was statistically significantly associated with higher age, higher BMI, and reconstructive surgery. CONCLUSION: Functional outcome and HRQoL were generally high in this cross-sectional study of patients with STS in the lower extremity. Both tumor- and treatment-related factors had an impact but patient-related factors such as age and BMI were the major determinants of both functional outcome and HRQoL.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".