The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring system is a valid subjective and objective tool to evaluate outcomes of surgical treatment of patients affected by upper and lower extremity tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main purpose of the present study was to evaluate if there is a difference between objective or subjective administration of the MSTS score in a cohort of patients affected by musculoskeletal oncological diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for bone or soft tissue localization of neoplastic disease in lower or upper limb from June 2015 to June 2020 were considered eligible. In order to administer the score as a PROM, the MSTS was first translated and cross-culturally adapted in Italian. During follow up visits, all patients filled out Italian versions of SF36, TESS and MSTS. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of MSTS were analyzed. Correlation between objective and self-administered MSTS score was assessed through Pearson's coefficient. RESULTS: A finale sample of 110 patients were included: 59 affected by lower extremity involvement and 51 affected by upper extremity involvement. The Italian version of the MSTS score showed good psychometric properties for both lower and upper extremity. The correlation between self-administered and hetero-administered version of the questionnaire was as high as r = 0.97 for lower extremities and r = 0.96 for upper extremities. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of the MSTS is a valid tool to evaluate outcomes of surgical treatment of patients affected by extremities tumors and it can be used as a subjective tool for both lower and upper extremity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".