Bone invasion in extremity soft‐tissue sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate histologic bone invasion as a predictor of oncologic outcome in extremity soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) patients presenting to a specialty sarcoma center between 1986 and 2001. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for extremity STS were identified from the prospective database at the study institution. Patient demographic features were compared using chi-square analyses or independent-sample Student t-tests. The disease outcomes were compared for those with and without bone invasion using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox modeling. RESULTS: In a review of 874 patients with STS of the extremity, 48 patients (5.5%) had evidence of bone invasion. Patients with bone invasion presented with larger tumors that were more frequently deep in the extremity and more often had metastases at presentation. Patients with bone invasion had lower metastasis-free survival but bone invasion was not found to be an independent prognostic factor (P = .274) on Cox modeling. Bone invasion was found to be prognostic of overall survival on multivariate analysis (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a small percentage of patients with STS, bone resection may be required to obtain an adequate surgical margin, thereby limiting the risk of local tumor recurrence. Histologic bone invasion portends a poorer prognosis in terms of overall survival.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".