Denosumab and Giant Cell Tumour of Bone—A Review and Future Management Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giant cell tumour of bone (gctb) is one type of giant-cell-rich bone lesion characterized by the presence of numerous multinucleated osteoclast-type giant cells. Giant cells are known to express rankl (receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand) and are responsible for the aggressive osteolytic nature of the tumour. No available treatment option is definitively effective in curing this disease, especially in surgically unsalvageable cases. In recent years, several studies of denosumab in patients with advanced or unresectable gctb have shown objective changes in tumour composition, reduced bony destruction, and clinical benefit. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets and binds with high affinity and specificity to rankl. Several large phase iii studies have shown that denosumab is more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing skeletal morbidity arising from a wide range of tumours and that it can delay bone metastasis. The relevant articles are reviewed here. The controversies related to the future use of denosumab in the treatment of gctb are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".