Osteoblastic Metastases Mimickers on Contrast Enhanced CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary osseous involvement in lymphoma is more common compared to primary bone lymphoma. The finding of osseous lesion can be incidentally discovered during the course of the disease. However, osseous metastases are infrequently silent. Detection of osseous metastases is crucial for accurate staging and optimal treatment planning of lymphoma. The aim of imaging is to identify the presence and extent of osseous disease and to assess for possible complications such as pathological fracture of the load-bearing bones and cord compression if the lesion is spinal. We are presenting two patients with treated lymphoma who were in complete remission. On routine follow-up contrast enhanced CT, there were new osteoblastic lesions in the spine worrisome for metastases. Additional studies were performed for further evaluation of both of them which did not demonstrate any corresponding suspicious osseous lesion. The patients have a prior history of chronic venous occlusive thrombosis that resulted in collaterals formation. Contrast enhancement of the vertebral body marrow secondary to collaterals formation and venous flow through the vertebral venous plexus can mimic the appearance of spinal osteoblastic metastases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".