Heterotopic Ossification in the Residual Limbs of Traumatic and Combat-Related Amputees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports on the occurrence and treatment of heterotopic ossification in amputees are rare. Heterotopic ossification in the residual limbs of amputees may cause pain and skin breakdown and complicate or prevent optimal prosthetic fitting and utilization. Basic science research has shed light on the cellular and molecular basis for this disease process, but many questions remain unanswered. The recent experience of the military amputee centers with traumatic and combat-related amputations has demonstrated a surprisingly high prevalence of heterotopic ossification in residual limbs. Primary prophylactic regimens, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local irradiation, which have proved to be effective in preventing and limiting heterotopic ossification in other patient populations, have not been studied in amputees and generally are not feasible in the setting of acute traumatic amputation. When nonsurgical measures such as activity and repeated prosthetic modifications fail to provide relief, surgical excision has provided good early clinical results, with low rates of recurrence and acceptable complication rates in military amputees.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".