Influence of the adductor compartment resection on muscle strength and postoperative function in soft-tissue sarcoma of the thigh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To predict the muscle strength and postoperative function for soft-tissue sarcoma arising from the adductor compartment of the thigh. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2019, 17 cases that underwent resection of the adductor muscle group (adductor longus, adductor magnus, adductor brevis, gracilis and pectineus) for soft-tissue sarcoma in the adductor compartment of the thigh were included. The muscle strength was measured with an isokinetic dynamometer for the knee joint and with a hand-held dynamometer for the hip joint (ratio of affected to unaffected side). The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and maximum walking speed were used to assess postoperative function and examine correlations with muscle strength. RESULTS: In 13 cases that underwent an isolated resection of the adductor compartment, reduced adduction strength correlated with increased number of resected muscles in the adductor muscle group (P < 0.001). Postoperative function was maintained, showing no correlations with adduction strength. In four cases that underwent combined resections of other compartments, a decrease was observed in adduction strength as well as the muscle strength of other resected muscles, in addition to a decline in postoperative function. In the 4 or 5 adductor muscle resection group, the comparison between isolated and combined resection revealed comparable results for adduction strength but a significant decrease in postoperative function for the combined resection group. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative function can be preserved for isolated adductor compartment resection. Combined resections of multiple muscles in other compartments and most adductor muscles may result in decreased postoperative 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".