Giant Cell Tumor of Long Bone: A Canadian Sarcoma Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multicentric retrospective study of giant cell tumor of bone was conducted among Canadian surgeons. The hypothesis was that no differences would be found in health status, function, or recurrence rate irrespective to the nature of filling material or adjuvant used in patients treated with curettage. One hundred eighty-six cases were collected. There were 96 females and 90 males. The mean age of the patients was 36 years (range, 14-72 years), the minimum followup was 24 months, and the median followup was 60 months. Sixty-two percent of the tumors involved the knee region. One hundred fifty-eight were primary tumors and 28 were recurrences. Campanacci grading was as follows: Grade 1, seven patients; Grade 2, 100 patients; Grade 3, 76 patients; and unknown in three patients. Fifty-six patients had a pathologic fracture. Resection was done in 38 patients and 148 patients had curettage. The latter was supplemented with high speed burring in 135 patients, cement in 64 patients, various combinations of autograft or allograft bone in 61 patients, phenol in 37 patients, and liquid nitrogen in 10 patients. Structural allografts were used in 25 patients. The overall recurrence rate was 17%, 18% after curettage, and 16% after resection. Patients with primary tumors treated with curettage had a 10% recurrence rate. For recurrent lesions treated by curettage, the recurrence rate was 35%. The nature of the filling material used or the type of adjuvant method used or any combination of both failed to show any statistical impact on the recurrence risk. The results from the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society rating from 1987 were significantly lower in patients who sustained a displaced fracture. Results from the bodily pain section of the Short Form-36 also were found to be lower when a pathologic fracture was present. Results from the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating 1987, the Short Form-36, and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score did not show differences when either cement or bone graft were used after curettage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".