Pathologic Fractures of the Proximal Femur Secondary to Benign Bone Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pathologic fractures of the proximal femur secondary to benign bone tumors often are difficult to treat because of specific anatomic features of this region and the aggressiveness of the tumors. Between 1986 and 1996, 11 patients presented with a pathologic fracture of the proximal femur secondary to a benign bone tumor. All were treated with a uniform approach consisting of biopsy, intralesional curettage, high-speed burring, and reconstruction using morselized allograft, autograft, and a fixed-angle implant. The average followup was 4 years 3 months (range, 24-114 months). One patient was lost to followup. All fractures healed, and there were no local recurrences and no cases of avascular necrosis. Functional evaluation revealed generally good results. Patients scored a mean of 32.6 on the original Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scale and 95.8 on the revised version. The average Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 91.3. With the numbers available, there were no significant differences between the study group and population norms in the Short Form-36. These results suggest that a uniform approach based on preservation of the femoral head can be applied successfully to the treatment of these lesions with good local tumor control, fracture healing, and acceptable functional outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".