MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578607915 · doi:10.1186/s13256-016-1132-z

Complete deltoid resection in early childhood without muscle transfer results in normal shoulder function at long-term follow-up: a case report

2017· article· en· W2578607915 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Arteau, Franziska Seeli, Bruno Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Case Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersUniversität Zürich
KeywordsMedicineDeltoid muscleDeltoid curveSurgical oncologySurgeryResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal tumors involving the deltoid muscle and necessitating its complete resection are rare. The function after complete deltoid resection is reported to be limited, and several authors consider muscle transfer to improve shoulder motion. However, it still remains unclear whether such transfer adds function. To the best of our knowledge, all reports on complete deltoid resection refer to adult patients, and it is unknown what function results after deltoid resection in childhood. The remaining muscles may have the potential to compensate for the loss of deltoid function. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we report the case of a 5-year-old white boy with complete (isolated) deltoid muscle resection in infancy for a large aggressive soft tissue tumor. No reconstructive procedure or muscle transfer was performed at the time of index surgery. Pathology revealed an angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma. His postoperative course was uneventful. At 11 years of follow-up, he remained disease-free and had excellent shoulder function, including normal range of motion. CONCLUSIONS: This report implies that major muscles such as the deltoid can be resected in a child without compromising long-term function. Therefore, a muscle transfer at index surgery is probably not necessary.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Case ReportsSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207