Limb salvage for soft-tissue sarcomas of the foot and ankle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the oncological and functional outcome of 27 patients who had limb salvage for a soft-tissue sarcoma of the foot or ankle between 1992 and 2007, with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (1.05 to 16.2). There were 12 men and 15 women, with a mean age at presentation of 47 years (12 to 84). Referrals came from other hospitals for 16 patients who had previous biopsy or unplanned excision, and 11 presented de novo. There were 18 tumours located in the foot and nine around the ankle. Synovial sarcoma was the most frequent histological diagnosis. Excision was performed in all cases, with 16 patients requiring plastic surgical reconstruction with 13 free and three local flaps. Adjuvant treatment was undertaken in 20 patients, 18 with radiotherapy and two by chemotherapy. Limb salvage was successful in 26 of the 27 patients. There have been two local recurrences and two mesenchymal metastases. Four patients have died of their sarcoma and two of other causes. Function was evaluated with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and a mean overall score of 89.40 (52.1 to 100) was obtained. A questionnaire revealed that all surviving patients are able to wear normal shoes and none require a walking aid. Limb salvage can achieve good oncological and functional results with additional treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".