Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal humerus following resection of bone tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1988 and 2006, 18 patients had a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement of the distal humerus for bone tumours at our institution. There were 11 primary malignant neoplasms, six secondary deposits, and one benign aggressive tumour. The mean follow-up was for 4.4 years (1 to 18.2). Complications occurred in nine patients and included aseptic loosening in three (16.6%), local recurrence in two (11%), infection in two (11%), neuropraxia of the radial nerve in one (5.5%) and a peri-prosthetic fracture in one (5.5%). Excision was inadequate in four patients (22%), all of which developed local recurrence and/or metastases. There were seven deaths from the primary disease after a mean of 2.3 years (1 to 5), one of whom had an above-elbow amputation for local recurrence seven months before death. The remaining six had satisfactory elbow function at their last follow-up. The 11 living patients were evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society and Toronto Extremity Salvage scoring systems. The mean scores achieved were 76% (67% to 87%) and 73% (59% to 79%), respectively. Overall, 17 of 18 patients had significant improvement in the degree of their pain following operation. Custom-made endoprosthetic reconstruction of the elbow for bone tumours is a viable treatment in carefully selected patients. It maintains satisfactory function and provides good pain relief.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".