MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035653262 · doi:10.1002/jso.1127

Complications and functional evaluation of 17 saddle prostheses for resection of periacetabular tumors*

2001· article· en· W2035653262 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Pascal Cottias, Cécile Jeanrot, T S Vinh, B Toméno, Philippe Anract

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryChondrosarcomaProsthesisResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seventeen saddle prostheses were inserted between 1988 and 1997 after resection of periacetabular tumors. The tumors involved the zones II and III of Enneking classification in 13 patients, the zones I and II in 2 patients, and the zone II in 2 patients. The tumors included 11 chondrosarcomas, 3 Ewing sarcomas, 2 giant cells tumors, and 1 metastasis of renal carcinoma. The tumoral resection was wide "en bloc" in 14 cases, marginal in 2 cases, and intratumoral in 1 case. The mean follow-up period of the patients is 42 months ranging from 8 to 84 months. Local recurrences occurred in five cases and metastases in four cases. Five patients died of tumoral disease and one of intercurrent disease. Complications were observed in 11 cases (65%) including nerve damages (3 cases), deep infections (3 cases), upward migrations of the saddle (4 cases), saddle dislocations (3 cases), sacroiliac subluxations (2 cases), and mechanical failures (2 cases). The modified Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) were used for functional analysis. Functional results were available for only nine patients of the series with a mean MSTS of 17 points ranging from 11 to 23 points and a mean TESS of 58 points ranging from 39 to 95 points. The saddle prosthesis provided in all cases of this series an early painfree weight-bearing reconstruction with minimal limb shortening, but the functional results remained fair in most patients due to a limited range of motion and a poor abductor strength.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207