MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937175301 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10196

Local Tumor Recurrence and Escape from Suppression of Bone Resorption With Denosumab Treatment in Two Adolescents With Giant Cell Tumors of Bone

2019· article· en· W2937175301 on OpenAlexafffund
Umar Akel, Marie‐Eve Robinson, Joel Werier, Raja Rampersaud, Kawan Rakhra, Donna L. Johnston, Victor N. Konji, Jinhui Ma, Marika Pagé, Mary Ann Matzinger, Leanne M. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist ProgramUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsDenosumabMedicineBone resorptionGiant-cell tumor of boneResorptionResectionGiant cellSurgeryInternal medicinePathologyOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Giant cell tumors of bone (GCTB) may be difficult to resect because of size or location. We describe two adolescents who were treated with denosumab and followed for tumoral and biochemical responses. Denosumab was effective in achieving sufficient regression to allow surgical resection and in preserving peritumor cortical bone. Reactivation of bone resorption markers was noted while the patients were receiving monthly denosumab. One patient suffered a local tumor recurrence. Denosumab was safe in enabling surgical resection of GCTB. However, the effect was transient, with an escape of resorption markers and tumor recurrence. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207