Does the method of treatment affect the outcome in soft-tissue sarcomas of the adductor compartment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have investigated the significance of the method of treatment on the oncological and functional outcomes and on the complications in 184 patients with soft-tissue sarcomas of the adductor compartment managed at three international centres. The overall survival at five years was 65% and was related to the grade at diagnosis and the size of the tumour. There was no difference in overall survival between the three centres. There was, however, a significant difference in local control with a rate of 28% in Centre 1 compared with 10% in Centre 2 and 5% in Centre 3. The overall mean functional score using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score in 70 patients was 77% but was significantly worse in patients with wound complications or high-grade tumours. The scores were not affected by the timing of radiotherapy or the use of muscle flaps. This large series of soft-tissue sarcomas of the adductor compartment has shown that factors influencing survival do not vary across the international boundaries studied, but that methods of treatment affect complications, local recurrence and function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".