Periprosthetic bone remodelling around a prosthesis for distal femoral tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
W e used dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) to evaluate the extent of periprosthetic bone remodelling around a prosthesis for distal femoral reconstruction, the Kotz modular femoral tibial replacement (KMFTR; Howmedica, Rutherford, New Jersey).A total of 23 patients was entered into the study which had four parts: 1) 17 patients were scanned three times on both the implant and contralateral legs to determine whether the precision of DEXA measurements was adequate to estimate bone loss surrounding the anchorage piece of the KMFTR; 2) in 23 patients the bone mineral density (BMD) in different regions of interest surrounding the diaphyseal anchorage was compared with that of the contralateral femur at the same location to test whether there was consistent evidence of loss of BMD adjacent to the prosthetic stem; 3) in 12 patients sequential studies were performed about one year apart to compare bone loss; and 4) bone loss was compared in ten patients with implants fixed by three screws and in 13 without screws.The mean coefficients of variation (SD/mean) for the 17 sets of repeated scans ranged from 2.9% to 7.8% at different regions of interest in the KMFTR leg and from 1.4% to 2.5% in the contralateral leg.BMD was decreased in the KMFTR leg relative to the contralateral limb and the percentage of BMD loss in general increased as the region of interest moved distally in the femur.Studies done after one year showed no consistent pattern of progressive bone loss between the two measurements.The ten patients with implants fixed by screws were found to have a mean loss of BMD of 42% in the most distal part of the femur, while the 13 without screw fixation had a mean loss of 11%.DEXA was shown to have adequate precision to evaluate loss of BMD around the KMFTR.This was evident relative to the contralateral leg in all patients and generally increased in the most distal part of the femur.In general, it stabilised between two measurements taken one year apart and was greater surrounding implants fixed by cross-locking screws.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".