Periosteal Chondroid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the imaging features of periosteal chondroid tumors correlate with histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients (nine women and 13 men; mean age, 33 years) with pathologically proven periosteal chondroid lesions were retrospectively reviewed. The imaging modalities included conventional radiography (n = 17), CT (n = 10), and MR imaging (n = 14). The images were reviewed by two osteoradiologists, with agreement by consensus. Evaluation criteria included lesion location, mineralization, and size; periosteal reaction; and cortical response. Intramedullary extension, adjacent intramedullary edema, soft-tissue edema, and intrinsic characteristics were also evaluated on MR imaging. After the evaluation, a radiologic diagnosis of chondroma or chondrosarcoma was obtained. An experienced osteopathologist who was unaware of the patient's medical history and radiologic findings reviewed all histopathology. Agreement between the radiologic and the histopathologic diagnosis was tested using the kappa analysis. Imaging features were correlated with the pathologic findings, and a statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Using strict pathologic criteria, we diagnosed 11 chondromas and 11 chondrosarcomas (nine, grade I; two, grade II). Moderate agreement was reached between the radiologic and the pathologic diagnosis (kappa = 0.55). The size of periosteal chondrosarcomas (range, 3-14 cm; median, 4 cm) was considerably larger than the size of the chondromas (range, 1-6.5 cm; median, 2.5 cm; p < 0.05). Other imaging features did not significantly correlate with benign versus malignant disease at pathology (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: A variable overlap existed in the imaging appearances of benign and malignant periosteal chondroid lesions, with size being the most reliable indicator in distinguishing the two lesions. This and the fact that histologic differentiation of the entities can be difficult, suggests that surgical wide excision may be the most appropriate procedure in treating patients with lesions greater than 3 cm.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".