Thin Cartilage Cap May Be Related to the Spontaneous Regression in Pediatric Patients with Osteochondroma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The spontaneous regression of osteochondromas is rare, and only a few cases have been reported. Furthermore, the precise mechanism underlying spontaneous regression is unknown. This study aimed to examine the radiological findings of osteochondromas that had spontaneous regression and to identify potential indicators of this uncommon phenomenon in skeletally immature patients with osteochondromas. METHODS: We included 28 patients (15 males and 13 females) who met the eligibility criteria between 2002 and 2019. The mean age at initial diagnosis was 9.7 years old (2-16 years). The mean follow-up period was 6.4 years (3-16 years). RESULTS: Of the 28 patients, 10 (35.7%) had osteochondroma resolution. The osteochondroma resolved in one patient and regressed in nine. Tumor shrinkage is related to the thickness of the cartilage cap. The thickness of the cartilage cap did not correlate with age. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor shrinkage is associated with a thinner cartilage cap on magnetic resonance imaging. The thickness of the cartilage cap may be an important predictor of spontaneous regression in pediatric patients with osteochondroma.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".