MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pressurization of the Metastatic Femur During Prophylactic Intramedullary Nail Fixation

2004· article· en· W2075826000 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra E. Roth, Mary M. Rebello, Hans J. Kreder, Cari Whyne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreWomen's College HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntramedullary rodMedicineFixation (population genetics)FemurCadaveric spasmSurgeryMedullary cavityAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Venting during prophylactic nailing of metastatic femoral lesions may decrease intramedullary pressures and the risk of fat and tumor embolization. This study aimed to quantify maximum intramedullary pressure levels and durations, and to examine tumor displacement during prophylactic reamed intramedullary nailing of vented and nonvented metastatically involved femora. METHODS: Proximal metastatic defects were simulated in six pairs of cadaveric femora and prophylactically treated using reamed intramedullary nailing with or without proximal and distal vents. Maximum pressures, durations of pressure exceeding embolic threshold levels (25 and 200 mm Hg), and tumor displacement were recorded. RESULTS: Maximum pressures and durations of pressure exceeding embolic thresholds decreased more than 50% with venting (p < 0.05). Distal pressures surpassed the 25-mm Hg threshold even with venting. Post-test sectioning showed increased tumor disbursement in vented specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Venting reduces pressurization during prophylactic reamed intramedullary nailing of femoral metastases, but may increase the spread of tumor to extraskeletal tissue if vented tissue is not contained.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207