The efficacy of chemical adjuvants on giant-cell tumour of bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various chemicals are commonly used as adjuvant treatment to surgery for giant-cell tumour (GCT) of bone. The comparative effect of these solutions on the cells of GCT is not known. In this study we evaluated the cytotoxic effect of sterile water, 95% ethanol, 5% phenol, 3% hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)) and 50% zinc chloride (ZnCI(2)) on GCT monolayer tumour cultures which were established from six patients. The DNA content, the metabolic activity and the viability of the cultured samples of tumour cells were assessed at various times up to 120 hours after their exposure to these solutions. Equal cytotoxicity to the GCT monolayer culture was observed for 95% ethanol, 5% phenol, 3% H(2)O(2) and 50% ZnCI(2). The treated samples showed significant reductions in DNA content and metabolic activity 24 hours after treatment and this was sustained for up to 120 hours. The samples treated with sterile water showed an initial decline in DNA content and viability 24 hours after treatment, but the surviving cells were viable and had proliferated. No multinucleated cell formation was seen in these cultures. These results suggest that the use of chemical adjuvants other than water could help improve local control in the treatment of GCT of bone.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".