Functional Outcome of Endoprosthetic Proximal Femoral Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoprosthetic proximal femur replacement is a well-accepted method for treatment of primary bone tumors; however the functional results of treatment are not well documented. To evaluate functional outcomes, we recorded the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 and 1993 scores in 29 patients, and also recorded Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores alone in four more patients treated with endoprosthetic proximal femur replacement. The mean followup was 3 years. Twelve patients had a total hip endoprosthetic proximal femur replacement, and 21 had a bipolar hip endoprosthetic proximal femur replacement. In nine patients, the greater trochanter was attached to the femoral prosthesis. Sixteen patients had an abductor soft tissue repair, and in eight patients, no abductor repair was possible. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1987 score was 23.2 +/- 4.1 points of 35 points. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 1993 score was 67.7 +/- 12.0%. The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score mean was 76.2 +/- 16.2 points of 100 points. Functional scores did not differ significantly between abductor repair types. There was a trend toward less disability in patients with abductor soft tissue repair compared with patients with no abductor repair. Functional results were similar in patients receiving bipolar and total hip replacements.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".