Viable versus nonviable positive margins in Ewing sarcoma and associated recurrence rates: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residual tumor after curative intent therapy in patients with Ewing's sarcoma is of great clinical significance. Surgeons use the resection margin to indicate the completeness of a surgical excision. However, this margin may be either nonviable/necrotic or viable. This systematic review examines the 5-year event-free survival rate and local recurrence as a function of positive resection margins that are nonviable/necrotic versus those that are viable. Multiple databases were searched using the Ovid interface. After full text screening, 45 articles that reported either margin or postchemotherapy histology and one or more outcomes of interest were identified, and two articles reported on margin and histology simultaneously. An attempt was made to contact the remaining authors and one author was able to provide additional data. The data from the three studies suggest that prognosis in ES depends on both margin involvement and the postchemotherapy histological response simultaneously. However, radiation therapy likely improves local control in patients with inadequate surgical margins, regardless of histological response. This is an area where there is a paucity of evidence that needs to be rectified to ensure that ES patients are provided the highest quality of evidence-based care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".