Comparison of retroperitoneal liposarcoma extending into the inguinal canal and inguinoscrotal liposarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> This study was designed to analyze differences between retroperitoneal liposarcoma (RLPS) extending into the inguinal canal and inguinoscrotal liposarcoma. <h3>Methods:</h3> We retrospectively reviewed the records for patients who were managed for inguinal liposarcoma at Samsung Medical Center, a tertiary hospital, between January 1998 and December 2016. Patient data on demographics, tumour location, surgery, adjuvant therapy, histology, recurrence and death were collected. We used Mann–Whitney, Fisher exact and Kaplan–Meier log-rank tests to analyze differences between groups. <h3>Results:</h3> Seven of 179 (3.9%) patients with abdominal liposarcoma had inguinoscrotal liposarcoma, and 6 of 168 (3.6%) patients with RLPS had extension to the inguinal canal. No differences were observed between groups in sex (<i>p</i> > 0.99), mean age (49.7 ± 6.4 yr v. 52.1 ± 12.5 yr, <i>p</i> = 0.37), laterality (<i>p</i> > 0.99) or scrotal involvement (40.0% v. 66.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.57). The RLPS group had significantly larger tumours than the inguinoscrotal group (27.9 ± 6.8 cm v. 7.8 ± 4.2 cm, <i>p</i> = 0.001). Postoperative complications were significantly more common in the RLPS group (<i>n</i> = 4, 83.3%); patients in the inguinoscrotal group experienced no postoperative complications (<i>p</i> = 0.021). Log-rank tests showed that the groups had no statistical differences in disease-free survival (<i>p</i> = 0.94) or overall survival (<i>p</i> = 0.10). However, inoperable disease-free survival was significantly poorer in the RLPS group (<i>p</i> = 0.010). <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Although initial signs and symptoms can be similar, RLPS extending into the inguinal canal was associated with significantly higher morbidity and mortality than inguinoscrotal liposarcoma.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".