The need for improved patient reported outcome measures in patients with extremity sarcoma: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extremity sarcoma causes impairments to functionality and quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) assess patient perspectives relating to domains of health and quality of life. METHODS: To describe PROMs utilised in extremity sarcoma, the available literature was screened for studies that utilised PROMs to evaluate outcomes in extremity sarcoma following surgery. RESULTS: Seventy articles met eligibility criteria; six PROMs were identified. The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, The Short-Form 36, The EORTC QLQ-C30, The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, the Reintegration to Normal Living index and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Most sarcoma patients score well in these tools, with bone sarcoma, and extent of resection being predictors of poor outcomes. CONCLUSION: TESS is the only sarcoma-specific PROM, and though a valid assessment of functionality, it has difficulty differentiating patients with minor functional impairments. The absence of a disease-specific measure of health is concerning, as generic tools do not account for the unique experiences sarcoma patients face and may impair their accuracy in analysing intervention effectiveness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".