A comparative study between limb-salvage and amputation for treating osteosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Osteosarcoma is an aggressive malignant neoplasm, and conflicting findings have been reported on the survival and function recovery in osteosarcoma patients experiencing limb salvage or amputation. In the present study, we compared clinical outcomes regarding limb salvage surgery vs. amputation for osteosarcoma patients by a meta-analysis. METHOD: Literature search was conducted in CNKI, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and Web of Sciences, and the quality of included studies was evaluated based on Newcastle-Ottawa scale quality assessment. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of the local recurrence, 5-year overall survival, and metastasis occurrence were calculated. RESULTS: 17 articles were included according to selection criteria. There were 1343 patients in total derived from these studies. Our result showed that there was no significant difference between limb salvage surgery and amputation with respect to local recurrence, and patients with limb salvage surgery had a higher 5-year overall survival, and a lower metastasis occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provided more comprehensive evidences to support limb salvage surgery as an optimal treatment of osteosarcoma patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".