MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Favorable Long-Term Results of Prosthetic Arthroplasty of the Knee for Distal Femur Neoplasms

2005· article· en· W2075248854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Spencer J. Frink, Janie Rutledge, Valerae O. Lewis, Patrick P. Lin, Alan W. Yasko

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryProsthesisAmputationFemurRetrospective cohort studyKnee JointArthroplastyOrthopedic surgeryImplant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: We evaluated implant survival, late complications prompting reoperation and functional outcome in long-term (> 5 years) survivors of bone neoplasms of the distal femur treated with osteoarticular resection and segmental rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty. We retrospectively reviewed 83 patients who survived more than 5 years after the first procedure. Seventy-four of the 83 patients have retained a mobile knee joint. At a median followup of 146 months (range, 62-252 months), 22 patients required 26 additional procedures for a prosthesis-specific event (n = 24) or tumor recurrence (n = 2) after reaching 5-year followup. Aseptic loosening (n = 7) and component breakage (n = 2) occurred between 5 and 10 years. Polyethylene wear (n = 12) occurred only after 10 years. One late tumor recurrence at 62 months prompted amputation. All other patients retained a mobile knee joint. Functional outcome was excellent with a median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score of 88% and a median Toronto Extremity Severity Scale score of 94%. Patients with bone neoplasms who survive more than 5 years after limb salvage with a segmental rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty can expect to retain a mobile knee joint and function consistently at a high level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III-2 (retrospective cohort study). See the Guidelines for 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207