Surgical margin assessment of bone tumours: A systematic review of current and emerging technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteosarcoma is the most common malignant tumour of the bone. Complete surgical excision is critical to achieve optimal outcomes and lower recurrence rates. However, accurate assessment of tumour margins remains a challenge and multiple technologies are employed for this purpose. The aim of this study is to highlight current and emerging technologies and their efficacy in detecting clear bone margins intraoperatively, through a systematic review of the literature. The following databases were searched using the OVID platform: Medline, Embase, Global Health and Google Scholar. Studies were screened using predetermined eligibility criteria. Data was extracted based on study and patient characteristics, modes of detection, and commercial availability, followed by quality assessment. A total of 17 studies were included. The primary diagnosis varied, with osteosarcoma being reported by 9 studies. Three studies reported relapse, ranging between 17.6%-48%. Twelve studies reported non-invasive imaging as the mode of detection used, while 4 studies reported the use of frozen section. MRI and CT were found to have an accuracy of up to 93 %. Raman spectroscopy was reported to have an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 69%, 58.8% and 83.3% respectively. CT had a sensitivity and specificity up to 83% and 100%, respectively. In conclusion, there seems to be high potential for the use of multimodal technologies to increase the accuracy of intraoperative margin assessment. Although imaging modalities possess a fair level of accuracy, they carry the risk of radiation exposure, are expensive, and cannot be used in-situ. Future clinical trials are needed to test the effectiveness of these technologies to measure the diagnostic accuracy and overall patient survival.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".