Comparison of the Epidemiology, Disease Characteristics, Treatment, Outcomes, and Late Effects of Osteosarcoma and Ewing Sarcoma in Adolescents and Young Adults, treated in Ontario Pediatric versus Adult Cancer Centres: An IMPACT Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Location of cancer therapy (LOC) may impact outcomes in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma. Objectives: To compare differences in demographics, disease/treatment characteristics, survival and late effects in a population-based cohort of AYA with bone tumours treated in pediatric versus adult centres. Methods: We used administrative health databases to identify Ontario AYA (15 - 21 years old) diagnosed with osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma between 1992 - 2012. We compared patients by LOC using appropriate statistical methods. Results: 137 patients were diagnosed with osteosarcoma (47 pediatric, 90 adult) and 84 with Ewing sarcoma (38 pediatric, 46 adult). Pediatric centres had higher clinical trial enrolment rates and cumulative chemotherapy doses. Five-year event-free and overall survival rates were 47% and 58% in osteosarcoma and 43% and 56% in Ewing sarcoma. LOC did not impact survival. Conclusion: Outcomes in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma did not differ by LOC
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".