MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognosis of Radiation-induced Bone Sarcoma is Similar to Primary Osteosarcoma

2006· article· en· W1994157912 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmood Shaheen, Benjamin Deheshi, Soha Riad, Joel Werier, Ginger E. Holt, Peter C. Ferguson, Jay S. Wunder

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteosarcomaAmputationSarcomaSurgeryRadiation therapyChemotherapyPrimary tumorMetastasisBone SarcomaCancerCohortInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Radiation-induced sarcoma of bone (RISB) is thought to be associated with a poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to determine disease-free and overall survival of patients treated for RISB, and whether there is a role for limb sparing surgery. Twenty-four patients had a mean latency of 16 years between radiation for their index cancer and RISB diagnosis. The most common tumor was osteosarcoma (n = 17). Ten patients with localized disease treated aggressively with chemotherapy and surgical resection had estimated 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates of 58% and 69% respectively. Patients treated by surgery alone or those with metastases at diagnosis had inferior outcomes. Patients who received a complete course of chemotherapy demonstrated better histologic tumor response and improved survival. There was no difference in survival between the limb sparing surgery (n = 12) or amputation (n = 8) groups. However, limb salvage patients had slightly higher rates of local tumor relapse and post-operative complications. Functional outcome following limb sparing surgery for 10 patients with RISB was similar to a matched cohort treated for primary osteosarcoma. An aggressive treatment approach for patients with RISB may provide similar rates of local recurrence and metastasis and functional outcomes compared to patients with primary osteosarcoma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV-1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207