Analysis of Margin Classification Systems for Assessing the Risk of Local Recurrence After Soft Tissue Sarcoma Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare the ability of margin classification systems to determine local recurrence (LR) risk after soft tissue sarcoma (STS) resection. Methods Two thousand two hundred seventeen patients with nonmetastatic extremity and truncal STS treated with surgical resection and multidisciplinary consideration of perioperative radiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Margins were coded by residual tumor (R) classification (in which microscopic tumor at inked margin defines R1), the R+1mm classification (in which microscopic tumor within 1 mm of ink defines R1), and the Toronto Margin Context Classification (TMCC; in which positive margins are separated into planned close but positive at critical structures, positive after whoops re-excision, and inadvertent positive margins). Multivariate competing risk regression models were created. Results By R classification, LR rates at 10-year follow-up were 8%, 21%, and 44% in R0, R1, and R2, respectively. R+1mm classification resulted in increased R1 margins (726 v 278, P < .001), but led to decreased LR for R1 margins without changing R0 LR; for R0, the 10-year LR rate was 8% (range, 7% to 10%); for R1, the 10-year LR rate was 12% (10% to 15%) . The TMCC also showed various LR rates among its tiers ( P < .001). LR rates for positive margins on critical structures were not different from R0 at 10 years (11% v 8%, P = .18), whereas inadvertent positive margins had high LR (5-year, 28% [95% CI, 19% to 37%]; 10-year, 35% [95% CI, 25% to 46%]; P < .001). Conclusion The R classification identified three distinct risk levels for LR in STS. An R+1mm classification reduced LR differences between R1 and R0, suggesting that a negative but < 1-mm margin may be adequate with multidisciplinary treatment. The TMCC provides additional stratification of positive margins that may aid in surgical planning and patient education.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".