Evidence-Based Recommendations for Local Therapy for Soft Tissue Sarcomas
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
There has been a gradual migration in the local treatment of soft tissue sarcomas from amputation and similar radical resectional approaches to more conservative, function-preserving surgery combined with radiotherapy. This progress has been made possible by small, single-institution, randomized trials that demonstrated the superiority of this more conservative, combined-modality approach. In the new millennium, attention has shifted to defining subsets of patients who might be adequately treated by surgery alone and defining the optimal sequence of surgery and radiation for patients who require both types of local therapy. There remains considerable discussion and debate surrounding the issue of pre- and postoperative chemotherapy for patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas. Adjuvant chemotherapy is a standard of care for adults who have the subtypes of soft tissue sarcomas that typically occur in pediatric patients (Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma), and just as clearly, adjuvant chemotherapy is not warranted in patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease (stages I and II). For patients with higher risk disease (stage III), the available randomized trials do not convincingly demonstrate a clinical benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy. As such, a complete accounting of potential risks and benefits is appropriate when discussing adjuvant chemotherapy with patients who have stage III disease.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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