MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

E-018 percutaneous sacroplasty for the management of painful pathologic fracture in a multiple myeloma patient

2015· article· en· W2413341348 on OpenAlexaff
Adam A. Dmytriw, Roger P. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacrumInsufficiency fractureSurgeryRadiologyPercutaneousQuality of life (healthcare)Pathologic fractureMultiple myelomaOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Percutaenous vertebroplasty has a well-established role in the treatment of pathologic fractures in patients with multiple myeloma. Despite this, there is a scarcity of literature surrounding its use and efficacy in the sacrum. We present a case of successful symptom resolution in a patient with painful sacral fracture following sacroplasty. Case presentation An 81 year-man with multiple myeloma presented to the hematology/oncology clinic with a history of excruciating pain while seated. The impact of this pain on his quality of life subjectively was rated to be particularly high. Plain radiographs of the sacrum confirmed the presence of pathologic fracture within the body of S2, later characterized with computed tomography. Under fluoroscopic guidance, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement was injected via an 18 gage needle using a far-lateral approach. No immediate post-procedural complications occurred, such as foraminal extravasation and venous injection. The patient reported himself to be pain-free one day following the procedure and this remains the case to-date at two years of follow-up. <h3>Discussion</h3> Sacroplasty is technically feasible and can provide durable relief of symptoms in patients with both painful pathologic fractures of the sacrum. It is likely underused and can offer tremendous benefit to myeloma patients. Analgesia intolerance and functional obstacles to quality of life (e.g., sitting up) should be common clinical considerations. Important technical considerations include cement volume delivered and the potential for complications. <h3>Disclosures</h3> A. Dmytriw: None. R. Smith: None.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207