Functional limitations caused by simple bone cysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Relatively little is known about the impact of benign bone lesions on function. The aim of this study was to create a more complete understanding of the impact of functional disability from simple bone cysts (SBCs) by combining qualitative and quantitative methods. METHODS: This study followed a convergent parallel mixed methods design. The quantitative arm included 130 children with SBC and used the Activities Scale for Kids (ASK) to measure physical function. In the qualitative arm ten children and their parents participated in interviews related to activity participation and interactions with their physical and social environments. The two data sets were analyzed independently and then the results were integrated. RESULTS: The ASK demonstrated 35% of children achieving the maximum score. In total, 65% of children responded "I had no medical needs" confirming that SBC, while being present throughout childhood, is largely perceived as not a chronic illness. Qualitatively most children reported minimal or no changes in activity participation but reported thinking about being more cautious during play, confirming that SBC affects effort not participation in play. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of SBC did not have a significant impact on physical function, but did alter children's thoughts about physical activity participation. This finding suggests that physical function scores may have unappreciated ceiling effects. Outcome tools that combine both illness perceptions and physical function may help to better assess functional outcomes of SBC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".