Impact of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on bone quality in a murine model of bone metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal therapies such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are gaining widespread clinical adoption in the local treatment of skeletal metastases. RFA has been shown to successfully destroy tumor cells, yet the impact of RFA on the quality of the surrounding bone has not been well characterized. RFA treatment was performed on femora of rats with bone metastases (osteolytic and osteoblastic) and healthy age matched rats. Histopathology, second harmonic generation imaging and backscatter electron imaging were used to characterize changes in the structure, organic and mineral components of the bone after RFA. RFA treatment was shown to be effective in targeting tumor cells and promoting subsequent new bone formation without impacting the surrounding bone negatively. Mineralization profiles of metastatic models were significantly improved post-RFA treatment with respect to mineral content and homogeneity, suggesting a positive impact of RFA treatment on the quality of cancer involved bone. Evaluating the impact of RFA on bone quality is important in directing the growth of this minimally invasive therapeutic approach with respect to fracture risk assessment, patient selection, and multimodal treatment planning.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".