MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609277705 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.16.00072

The Role of Denosumab in the Modern Treatment of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone

2017· article· en· W2609277705 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenosumabMedicineSacrumRANKLGiant cellCurettageGiant-cell tumor of boneTeriparatideSurgeryRadiologyOsteoporosisPathologyInternal medicineActivator (genetics)ReceptorBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

➢ Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is a benign, locally aggressive, osteolytic lesion. Typical treatment involves extended intralesional curettage or en bloc resection. ➢ Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody with inhibitory effects on RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand) that has shown early promise as a possible treatment adjuvant for GCTB. ➢ Current clinical trials of denosumab for GCTB have shown >85% clinical, radiographic, and histological responses. ➢ Case reports have demonstrated complete response or tumor stabilization with denosumab, allowing for less invasive surgical procedures. Current indications for denosumab in GCTB include lesions in the spine, sacrum, pelvis, and challenging lesions in upper and lower-extremity locations. ➢ Denosumab may be a therapeutic option in patients with unresectable or metastatic GCTB, but optimal length and dosing of treatment and long-term effects are unknown. Most concerning, potential rates of rapid recurrence post-treatment or pseudo-sarcomatous transformation following treatment cessation are still uncertain.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.318
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