MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074776240 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.080731

A Black Hole in a Bone — Intraosseous Lipoma

2009· article· en· W2074776240 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Péter Mandl, Ádám R. Mester, Péter Bálint

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnklePhysical examinationLesionMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyDiaphysisRadiographyCalcaneusSurgeryOrthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraosseous lipoma is an extremely rarely diagnosed benign bone tumor. In most cases diagnostic imaging techniques, namely computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are sufficient to reach a diagnosis, which in some cases is confirmed by postsurgical or postmortem histological examination. We describe 2 cases of intraosseous lipoma that were identified by practising rheumatologists at our rheumatology clinic. A 38-year-old man presented with pain in his right foot, ankle, knee, and first metatarsophalangeal joint. His history featured trauma-induced fractures of the left ankle and the right 6th rib. He did not recall any recent infection, travel, exertion, or other illness. Examination including musculoskeletal examination yielded no significant findings. Laboratory tests including metabolic panel and parathyroid hormone values were normal. Conventional radiographs of the right ankle and foot revealed a round, translucent, cystic lesion in the right calcaneal diaphysis in the trabecular bone, with areas of calcification (Figure 1a). CT scan of the lesion showed complete resorption of bone within the lesion, with the remaining tissue showing a fat …

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicMusculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207