Hip Joint Osteochondroma: Systematic Review of the Literature and Report of Three Further Cases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature with regards to surgical treatment of patients with hip joint osteochondromas, and to report our surgical management of three paediatric patients who had femoral neck or acetabular osteochondromas in association with acetabular dysplasia. We performed a systematic review using PubMed and Embase databases for all studies that reported surgical treatments for patients with peritrochanteric or acetabular osteochondroma with or without acetabular dysplasia. We also retrospectively reviewed three patients who were diagnosed with a hip osteochondroma in association with actetabular dysplasia. These patients were known to have hereditary multiple exostoses (HME). The systematic review revealed 21 studies that met our inclusion criteria. All studies were case reports and retrospective in nature and failed to conclude a uniform treatment plan. The three reported cases illustrate successful excision of hip osteochondromas and treatment of acetabular dysplasia. Early excision of hip osteochondromas might prevent acetabular dysplasia in HME patients. Routine radiographic pelvic survey at the time of diagnosis of HME is recommended for early detection of hip osteochondromas and acetabular dysplasia in these children.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it