Functional State and Rehabilitation of Patients after Primary Brain Tumor Surgery for Malignant and Nonmalignant Tumors: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the pre- and postoperative function of patients qualifying for resection of malignant and nonmalignant primary brain tumors to determine the relationship among tumor type, function, and the course of rehabilitation after surgery. This single-center, prospective, observational study recruited 92 patients requiring prolonged postoperative rehabilitation during their inpatient stay, who were divided into a nonmalignant tumor group (n = 66) and a malignant tumor group (n = 26). Functional status and gait efficiency were assessed using a battery of instruments. Motor skills, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay (LoS) were recorded and compared between groups. The frequency and severity of postoperative complications, the time needed to attain individual motor skills, and the proportion of patients losing independent gait (~30%) were similar between groups. However, paralysis and paresis were more frequent in the malignant tumor group before surgery (p < 0.001). While nonmalignant tumor patients deteriorated more according to all scales after surgery, patients with malignant tumors were still characterized by worse ADL, independence, and performance at discharge. Worse functional outcomes in the malignant tumor group did not affect LoS or rehabilitation. Patients with malignant and nonmalignant tumors have similar rehabilitation needs, and patient expectation—especially those with nonmalignant tumors—should be appropriately managed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".