MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062748509 · doi:10.1586/era.09.77

Current concepts and future perspectives in retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma management

2009· review· en· W2062748509 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Thomas, Brian O’Sullivan, Alessandro Gronchi

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcomaRadiation therapyLiposarcomaRhabdomyosarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaMyxoid liposarcomaRadiologySolitary fibrous tumorPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcomas are complex, heterogeneous cancers requiring expert multidisciplinary care. They can occur anywhere in the retroperitoneal abdominal or pelvic space. Usually large at presentation they present particular challenges for both local treatment and systemic control. The most common adult subtypes are liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas, followed by pleomorphic sarcoma/malignant fibros histiocytoma (an entity not always easily distinguishable from dedifferentiated liposarcoma). A variety of additional histotypes may also be observed, but are uncommon in the retroperitoneum, either because of intrinsic rarity or because they are usually found in other anatomic sites. The underlying biology varies according to the different histotypes. Pediatric subtypes mainly comprise extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma/pPNET and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma. Surgery is critical for controlling these tumors and requires an aggressive approach. It may also provide useful palliation for patients with advanced slow-growing disease. Radiotherapy has acquired a definite position in attempting to reduce relapse, although prospective trials of adjuvant or neoadjuvant radiotherapy are needed. Chemotherapy has a limited role in the adjuvant setting for most forms of retroperitoneal sarcoma (excluding pediatric subtypes), but has an increasing role in advanced disease. Novel targeted therapeutic agents that target specific amplification or translocation products offer promise for subsets of these diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207