A practical guide for planning pelvic bone percutaneous interventions (biopsy, tumour ablation and cementoplasty)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous approaches for pelvic bone procedures (bone biopsies, tumour ablation and cementoplasty) are multiple and less well systematised than for the spine or extremities. Among the different imaging techniques that can be used for guidance, computed tomography (CT) scan is the modality of choice because of the complex pelvic anatomy. In specific cases, such as cementoplasty where real-time evaluation is a determinant, a combination of CT and fluoroscopy is highly recommended. The objective of this article is to propose a systematic approach for image-guided pelvic bone procedures, as well as to provide some technical tips. We illustrate the article with multiple examples, and diagrams of the approaches and important structures to avoid to perform these procedures safely. TEACHING POINTS: • Pelvic bone procedures are safe to perform if anatomical landmarks are recognised. • The safest approach varies depending on the pelvic level. • CT is the modality of choice for guiding pelvic percutaneous procedures. • Fluoroscopy is recommended when real-time monitoring is mandatory. • MRI can also be used for guiding pelvic percutaneous procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it