FDG PET/CT in Initial Staging of Adult Soft-Tissue Sarcoma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soft-tissue sarcomas spread predominantly to the lung and it is unclear how often FDG-PET scans will detect metastases not already obvious by chest CT scan or clinical examination. Adult limb and body wall soft-tissue sarcoma cases were identified retrospectively. Ewing's sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, GIST, desmoid tumors, visceral tumors, bone tumors, and retroperitoneal sarcomas were excluded as were patients imaged for followup, response assessment, or recurrence. All patients had a diagnostic chest CT scan. 109 patients met these criteria, 87% of which had intermediate or high-grade tumors. The most common pathological diagnoses were leiomyosarcoma (17%), liposarcoma (17%), and undifferentiated or pleomorphic sarcoma (16%). 98% of previously unresected primary tumors were FDG avid. PET scans were negative for distant disease in 91/109 cases. The negative predictive value was 89%. Fourteen PET scans were positive. Of these, 6 patients were already known to have metastases, 3 were false positives, and 5 represented new findings of metastasis (positive predictive value 79%). In total, 5 patients were upstaged by FDG-PET (4.5%). Although PET scans may be of use in specific circumstances, routine use of FDG PET imaging as part of the initial staging of soft-tissue sarcomas was unlikely to alter management in our series.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it