MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Osteoid Osteoma and Osteoblastoma

2011· review· en· W2185199046 on OpenAlexaff
Kıvanç Ateşok, Benjamin A. Alman, Emil H. Schemitsch, Amos Peyser, Henry J. Mankin

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations308
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207