MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315864823 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30010085

Association between Inflammatory Markers and Local Recurrence in Patients with Giant Cell Tumor of Bone: A Preliminary Result

2023· article· en· W4315864823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shinji Tsukamoto, Andreas F. Mavrogenis, Rebeca Angulo Alvarado, Matteo Traversari, Manabu Akahane, Kanya Honoki, Yasuhito Tanaka, Davide María Donati, Costantino Errani

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUnivariate analysisLactate dehydrogenaseMultivariate analysisInternal medicineNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratioLymphocyteGastroenterologyAlkaline phosphataseGiant-cell tumor of boneDenosumabSurgeryPathologyOncologyGiant cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) has a high local recurrence rate of approximately 20%. Systemic inflammatory markers, such as neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), hemoglobin (Hb), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), have been reported as prognostic markers in patients with malignant tumors. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between these markers and the local recurrence rate of GCTB. In total, 103 patients with GCTB who underwent surgery at the authors' institutions between 1993 and 2021 were included. Thirty patients experienced local recurrence. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that tumor site, preoperative and postoperative denosumab treatment, and surgery were significantly associated with local recurrence-free survival. LDH was associated with local recurrence-free survival on univariate analysis only. NLR, mGPS, PNI, LMR, and PLR score did not correlate with the local recurrence rate. In conclusion, NLR, mGPS, PNI, LMR, PLR score, Hb, ALP, and LDH levels are not correlated with the local recurrence rate of GCTB. However, due to the small number of patients included in this study, this result should be re-evaluated in a multicenter study with a larger sample size.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207