MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125642804 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.91b10.22643

Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal tibia and ankle joint after resection of primary bone tumours

2009· article· en· W2125642804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. S. Shekkeris, Sammy A. Hanna, Mathew David Sewell, B. G. I. Spiegelberg, Will Aston, Gordon Blunn, S. R. Cannon, Timothy Briggs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleAmputationTibiaSurgeryPrimary boneDistal tibiaBone tumoursProsthesisFibula

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal tibia and ankle joint for a primary bone tumour is a rarely attempted and technically challenging procedure. We report the outcome of six patients treated between 1981 and 2007. There were four males and two females, with a mean age of 43.5 years (15 to 75), and a mean follow-up of 9.6 years (1 to 27). No patient developed a local recurrence or metastasis. Two of the six went on to have a below-knee amputation for persistent infection after a mean 16 months (1 to 31). The four patients who retained their endoprosthesis had a mean musculoskeletal tumour society score of 70% and a mean Toronto extremity salvage score of 71%. All were pain free and able to perform most activities of daily living in comfort. A custom-made endoprosthetic replacement of the distal tibia and ankle joint is a viable treatment option for carefully selected patients with a primary bone tumour. Patients should, however, be informed of the risk of infection and the potential need for amputation if this cannot be controlled.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations68
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207