A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Intralesional Bone Marrow and Steroid Injections for Simple Bone Cysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simple bone cysts are common benign lesions in growing children that predispose them to fracture and are sometimes painful. The purpose of this trial was to compare rates of healing of simple bone cysts treated with intralesional injections of bone marrow with rates of healing of those treated with methylprednisolone acetate. METHODS: Of ninety patients randomly allocated to treatment with either a bone-marrow or a methylprednisolone acetate injection, seventy-seven were followed for two years. The primary outcome, determined by a radiologist who was blind to the type of treatment, was radiographic evidence of healing. The cyst was judged to be either not healed (grade 1 [a clearly visible cyst] or grade 2 [a cyst that was visible but multilocular and opaque]) or healed (grade 3 [sclerosis around or within a partially visible cyst] or grade 4 [complete healing with obliteration of the cyst]). Patient function was assessed with use of the Activity Scale for Kids, and pain was assessed with the Oucher Scale. RESULTS: Sixteen (42%) of the thirty-eight cysts treated with methylprednisolone acetate healed, and nine (23%) of the thirty-nine cysts treated with bone marrow healed (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between the treatment groups (p > 0.09) with respect to function, pain, number of injections, additional fractures, or complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although the rate of healing of simple bone cysts was low following injection of either bone marrow or methylprednisolone, the latter provided superior healing rates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".