Joint Salvage for Pathologic Fracture of Giant Cell Tumor of the Lower Extremity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pathologic fracture through giant cell tumor is thought to be associated with higher rates of recurrence and poor functional outcome. We compared patients with and without pathologic fracture through giant cell tumor of weightbearing long bones. We retrospectively reviewed 139 patients with giant cell tumor of weightbearing long bones with (n = 43) and without (n = 96) pathologic fracture at presentation; the two groups had similar demographics. Joint salvage was successful in 84% of the fracture group and 96% of the nonfracture group. Five-year recurrence-free survival rates were comparable between the two groups (82.6% [95% confidence interval, 69.1-95.9%] in the fracture group and 77.9% [95% confidence interval, 67.7-88.1%] in the non-fracture group). There was a trend toward lower 5-year metastatic-free survival in the fracture group (94.7% [95% confidence interval, 87.3-100%]) than in the nonfracture group (97.3% [95% confidence interval, 93.5-100%]). Functional outcome was good and similar in the two groups. Arthrofibrosis was more common in the group with pathologic fracture. Joint salvage for patients with pathologic fractures through giant cell tumor of weightbearing bones is a reasonable option with functional outcomes and recurrence rates comparable to those of patients without fracture.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".