Treatment for unicameral bone cysts in long bones: an evidence based review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to perform an evidence based review for treatment of unicameral bone cysts. A search of MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) was conducted and the studies were classified according to levels of evidence. This review includes only comparative Level I-III studies. The systematic review identified 16 studies. There is one level I study, one level II study and the remaining 14 studies are level III. Seven of the sixteen studies had statistically different results: three studies indicated that steroid injection was superior to bone marrow injection or curettage and bone grafting; one study indicated that cannulated screws were superior to steroid injections; one study indicated resection and myoplasty was superior to steroid injection; one study indicated a combination of steroid, demineralized bone matrix and bone marrow aspirate, and curettage and bone grafting were superior to steroid injection; and one study indicated that curettage and bone grafting was superior to non-operative immobilization. Based on one Level I study, including a limited number of individuals, steroid injection seems to be superior to bone marrow injection. As steroid injections have already demonstrated superiority over bone marrow injections in a randomized clinical trial, the next step would be a prospective trial comparing steroid injections with other treatments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".