Surgical Management of Primary Bone Tumors of the Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Multicenter ambispective cohort analysis. Objective. The purpose of this study is to determine whether applying Enneking's principles to surgical management of primary bone tumors of the spine significanti decreases local recurrence and/or mortality. Summary of Background Data. Oncologic management of primary tumors of spine has historically been inconsistent, controversial, and open to individual interpretation. Methods. A multicenter ambispective cohort analysis from 4 tertiary care spine referral centers was done. Patients were analyzed in 2 cohorts, “Enneking Appropriate” (EA), surgical margin as recommended by Enneking, and “Enneking Inappropriate” (EI), surgical margin not recommended by Enneking. Benign tumors were not included in mortality analysis. Results. Two cohorts represented an analytic dataset with 147 patients, 86 male, average age 46 years (range: 10-83). Median follow-up was 4 (2–7) years in the EA and 6 (5.5–15.5) years in the EI. Seventy-one patients suffered at least 1 local recurrence during the study, 57 of 77 in the EI group and 14 of 70 in the EA group. EI surgical approach caused higher risk of first local recurrence (P < 0.0001). There were 48 deaths in total; 29 in the EI group and 19 in the EA. There was a strong correlation between the first local recurrence and mortality with an odds ratio of 4.69, (P < 0.0001). EI surgical approach resulted in a higher risk of mortality with a hazard ratio of 3.10, (P = 0.0485) compared to EA approach. Conclusion. Surgery results in a significant reduction in local recurrence when primary bone tumors of the spine are resected with EA margins. Local recurrence has a high concordance with mortality in resection of these tumors. A significant decrease in mortality occurs when EA surgery is used. Multicenter cohort analysis determined whether applying Enneking's principles to surgical management of primary bone tumors of spine affects local recurrence and/or mortality. Patients were analyzed in 2 cohorts, “Enneking Appropriate” and “Enneking Inappropriate.” Enneking inappropriate margins caused higher risk of local recurrence and resulted in higher risk of mortality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".