MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Giant Cell Tumor of Long Bone: A Canadian Sarcoma Group Study

2002· article· en· W1967756360 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaMount Sinai HospitalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCurettageSurgeryGrading (engineering)Giant-cell tumor of boneSarcomaRetrospective cohort studyGiant cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.293 · 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