MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12538478

Surgical images: musculoskeletal. Giant cell tumour of the sacrum.

2005· article· en· W12538478 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulrazzaq Alobaid, Rudy Reindl, Ghanima Alomer, Max Aebi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacrumPalpationPelvisNeurological examinationSacroiliac jointAnklePhysical examinationAtaxic GaitLow back painOrthopedic surgeryAnatomySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 23-year-old man presented with a 6-month history of progressive lower back pain. Three months earlier, the pain had started radiating into his legs, with numbness in the perineal area. Constitutional symptoms included night pain and a 9.1-kg weight loss over 6 months. Shortly before he presented to the orthopedic clinic he noted some difficulty initiating urination. He had been treated for mechanical back pain by 3 physicians. On physical examination, the patient walked with an antalgic gait, favouring the right side. He had moderate discomfort to direct palpation over the right sacroiliac joint with no mass in the area. Lateral compression of the pelvis or external rotation of his hip aggravated his discomfort. Flexion, extension and rotation of the spine or leg were limited by pain in the same area. On neurologic examination there was weakness in dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the right ankle. Also, the right extensor hallucis longus muscle was weak. Sensation was decreased over the L5, S1, S2 and S3 distribution. The ankle reflex was absent, but muscle tone was normal. His anal tone and bulbocavernosus reflex were preserved. The left side was neurologically intact. Radiographs of the area had been read as normal at an outside institution (Fig. 1). Close inspection revealed loss of definition of the anterior cortex of the sacrum on the lateral view. Urgent CT and MRI were carried out (Fig. 2, Fig. 3). CT revealed complete destruction of bony architecture on the right sacral ala and of the body of S1. The soft-tissue component of the lesion was better appreciated on MRI, where complete invasion of the spinal canal was seen. The lesion extended anteriorly into the pelvis. FIG. 3. MRI shows invasion of the lesion into the spinal canal. FIG. 2. CT shows destruction of bony architecture of the right sacral ala and body of S1. FIG. 1. Initial anteroposterior and lateral radiographs read as “normal.” Biopsy of the lesion revealed a giant cell tumour. Microscopic examination showed inconspicuous stromal cells with mitotic activity, with abundant multinucleated giant cells along with invasion of bone into surrounding soft tissue (Fig. 4). Histologic grade was 1 of 3 (according to Jaffe). FIG. 4. Biopsy specimen showing many multinucleated giant cells (hematoxylin–eosin, original magnification х200). Because of the vascularity of giant cell tumours, embolization was performed preoperatively. Angiography (Fig. 5) confirmed the vascular nature of the lesion. A hemisacrectomy was performed through a posterior approach. The pelvis was stabilized with pedicle screws into L4 and L5, which were connected to screws placed into the iliac wings. A fibular autograft was used to bridge the defect left by the resection (Fig. 6). FIG. 6. Radiograph shows stabilization of the pelvis with pedicle screws into L4 and L5 and iliac wings to stabilize the pelvis. FIG. 5. Angiogram shows the vascular nature of the tumour. A second-stage transperitoneal approach with mobilization of the sigmoid colon and rectum was then used to access and resect the tumour anteriorly. Two years postoperatively, the patient had some sacral root deficits on the right side but was disease free.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207