Arthrodesis of the Shoulder after Tumor Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Functional outcomes of patients with arthrodesis after resection of a shoulder girdle neoplasm are only sparsely reported. Fusion of the shoulder can be done as a primary reconstruction or secondarily for salvage of a failed limb-sparing procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 21 patients at a mean followup of 11 years. In eight patients, arthrodesis was done as the primary reconstruction and in 13 patients as the secondary procedure. There were no local recurrences, and no patient had metastatic disease develop. The overall Toronto extremity salvage and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores were 81% (range, 46-97) and 23 points (range, 17-26), respectively. There was no difference with respect to function between patients who had their arthrodesis as a primary or secondary procedure. Eight of 21 patients (43%) had a complication that required major surgical intervention. Shoulder arthrodesis as a limb salvage procedure after tumor resection provides good function independent of whether the procedure is done primarily or secondarily. Because of the high complication rate, future efforts must be directed at surgical methods to decrease such complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level IV (case series--no, or historical control group). See the Guidelines to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".