Iliosacral Resection for Primary Bone Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Iliosacral resection for primary bone tumors creates a large unstable pelvic ring defect, the treatment of which remains controversial. We did this study to determine if skeletal reconstruction of such defects is necessary. Sixteen patients whose data were collected prospectively had iliosacral resection with a minimum followup of 12 months. The surgical and functional results of patients who had skeletal reconstruction (n = 4) were compared with the results of patients who did not have iliosacral repair (n = 12) using a case-control design. Function was evaluated by assessing impairment using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 and 1993 rating scales, and disability was measured using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score. Although all four iliosacral arthrodeses initially healed, one allograft used for reconstruction fractured and another was removed because of progressive lumbosacral spinal instability. Patients treated without pelvic reconstruction had fewer operative complications. Although the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 and 1993 scores were similar for both patient groups, those patients who were treated without reconstruction were less likely to require the use of an ambulatory assistive device, less likely to require narcotics or have chronic pain, and more likely to return to work. These results suggest that reconstruction of the skeletal defect to restore pelvic stability after iliosacral resection is not mandatory. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III-1 (case-control study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".