MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586484517 · doi:10.21037/apm.2017.01.05

Clinical presentations of below knee bone metastases: a case series

2017· article· en· W2586484517 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Choi, Linda Probyn, Leigha Rowbottom, Rachel McDonald, Adam Bobrowski, Stephanie Chan, Pearl Zaki, Angela Turner, Edward Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Palliative Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapySurgeryMalignancyOrthopedic surgeryFibulaPresentation (obstetrics)ComplicationTibiaChemotherapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone metastases are a common complication of advanced malignancy; however, presentation of below-the-knee metastases, particularly affecting the fibula and tibia, are infrequently observed in both the clinical setting and the literature, and present a therapeutic challenge to patients and physicians alike. Due to the weight-bearing capacity of bones below-the-knee, the disruption of the structural and functional integrity of these bones can reduce mobility and thus quality of life. Treatment options for these patients include surgery, radiotherapy, and/or chemotherapy. Candidates for surgery typically have affected weightbearing bones. For patients not suitable for surgery, radiotherapy is prescribed for pain relief and bone remineralization. Herein, we report four cases in which two female and two male patients developed painful below knee metastases. Orthopedic surgery was consulted for all cases. Two patients underwent surgical fixation followed by radiotherapy, while the other two received palliative radiotherapy alone.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Palliative MedicineSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207