PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference Scores Correlate with the Lower Extremity Toronto Extremity Salvage Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) are both utilized to measure patient-reported outcomes in adults with musculoskeletal oncologic conditions. However, the relationship between them has not been studied. We sought to describe a link between Lower Extremity (LE) TESS and PROMIS Physical Function (PF) scores, as well as between LE TESS and Pain Interference (PI) scores, to develop a method for converting scores between TESS and PROMIS and to examine whether TESS and PROMIS captured differences in pain and function between clinically relevant subgroups in our population. Methods: Our study population consisted of 125 adult patients who underwent surgical treatment of a lower-extremity musculoskeletal tumor at a single sarcoma center between December 2015 and October 2018. The LE TESS questionnaire was administered to patients via paper and the PROMIS PF and PI were administered via iPad at a preoperative appointment. The relationship between LE TESS and PROMIS measures was analyzed with use of generalized linear modeling. Subgroup analyses were performed with a 2-tailed t test or 1-way analysis of variance. Results: + 73.8. PROMIS PF and PI performed similarly to LE TESS across multiple patient subgroups and captured the expected differences between subgroups. Conclusions: LE TESS and PROMIS PF appeared to measure similar information in patients with an orthopaedic oncologic condition. Moreover, PROMIS PI scores were strongly correlated with functional disability as measured with the LE TESS. Understanding the relationship between TESS and PROMIS will allow the comparison and combination of data for both clinical and research purposes. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".