Reconstructions of the Shoulder following Tumour Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review and compare the postoperative outcomes of 3 types of shoulder reconstructions: prosthetic arthroplasty, clavicula pro humero reconstruction, and allograft arthrodesis. METHODS: Records of 25 shoulder reconstructions following tumour resection were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative data, oncological prognoses, postoperative complications, and functions were assessed. RESULTS: We performed 10 prosthetic arthroplasties, 7 clavicula pro humero procedures, 4 allograft arthrodeses, and 4 soft tissue reconstructions. Eight patients died of their diseases. Three developed complications and underwent revision surgery. 19 patients achieved stable shoulders. Ten patients attended for functional assessments. Respective mean scores using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society-International Symposium on Limb Salvage and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score were: 77% and 82% for prosthetic arthroplasties, 67% and 62% for clavicula pro humero procedures, 83% and 70% for allograft arthrodeses, and 93% and 98% for soft tissue reconstructions. CONCLUSION: A stable construct is the treatment goal for shoulder reconstructions, as it enables effective function of the arm and hand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".