Functional Outcomes In Musculoskeletal Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In musculoskeletal oncology, limb salvage surgery is now the standard of care for most patients with bone or soft tissue tumors of the extremities. There has been an increased interest in quantifying functional outcomes following limb salvage with both physician reported and patient reported outcome tools utilized. However, due to the rarity of the disease and lack of prospective data, there remains significant gaps in the literature surrounding functional outcomes in this population. This thesis proposes minimal important difference values for commonly used functional outcome measures and created a predictive model for postoperative function for musculoskeletal oncology patients following lower extremity limb salvage and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The data for this thesis was retrieved from the Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial database and included patients undergoing lower extremity surgical resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone or soft tissue tumors. Utilizing this data, we provided answers to two important clinical questions 1) establishing minimal important difference (MID) values for commonly utilized functional outcome scoring systems and 2) determine patient and tumor factors predictive of postoperative function. We developed both anchor-based and distribution-based MID values for both the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, the two most utilized functional outcome tools in the field. Secondly, we characterized the longitudinal changes in function following endoprosthetic reconstruction and identified patient and tumor predictors of postoperative function. On average, patient function improved significantly from their preoperative baseline to 1-year follow-up, exceeding the predefined MID values. Older age, poor preoperative function, and endoprosthetic reconstruction for soft tissue sarcomas were associated with worse outcomes; reconstruction for giant cell tumors were associated with better post-operative function. Overall, these two studies aim to provide a deeper and more meaningful understanding of functional status in musculoskeletal oncology patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".