MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Osteoid Osteoma and Osteoblastoma

2011· review· en· W2185199046 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoid osteomaOsteoblastomaMedicineOsteoidOsteomaCurettageTibiaVascularityRadiologySurgeryOsteosarcomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoid osteoma and osteoblastoma are commonly seen benign osteogenic bone neoplasms. Both tumors are typically seen in the second decade of life, with a notable predilection in males. Histologically, these tumors resemble each other, with characteristically increased osteoid tissue formation surrounded by vascular fibrous stroma and perilesional sclerosis. However, osteoblastomas are larger than osteoid osteomas, and they exhibit greater osteoid production and vascularity. Clinically, osteoid osteoma most commonly occurs in the long bones (eg, femur, tibia). The lesions cause night pain that is relieved with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Osteoblastoma is most frequently located in the axial skeleton, and the pain is usually not worse at night and is less likely to be relieved with NSAIDs. Osteoblastoma can be locally aggressive; osteoid osteoma lacks growth potential. Osteoid osteoma may be managed nonsurgically with NSAIDs. When surgery is required, minimally invasive methods (eg, CT-guided excision, radiofrequency ablation) are preferred. Osteoblastoma has a higher rate of recurrence than does osteoid osteoma, and patients must be treated surgically with intralesional curettage or en bloc resection.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.288 · 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