MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Giant cell tumour of bone

2023· article· en· W4367550118 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Aoude, David Nikomarov, Jonathan R. Perera, Izuchukwu Ibe, Anthony M. Griffin, Kim M. Tsoi, Peter C. Ferguson, Jay S. Wunder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bone & Joint Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCurettageSurgeryDenosumabGiant-cell tumor of boneSalvage therapyTeriparatideLesionGiant cellOsteoporosisChemotherapyInternal medicineBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a locally aggressive lesion that is difficult to treat as salvaging the joint can be associated with a high rate of local recurrence (LR). We evaluated the risk factors for tumour relapse after treatment of a GCTB of the limbs. A total of 354 consecutive patients with a GCTB underwent joint salvage by curettage and reconstruction with bone graft and/or cement or en bloc resection. Patient, tumour, and treatment factors were analyzed for their impact on LR. Patients treated with denosumab were excluded. There were 53 LRs (15%) at a mean 30.5 months (5 to 116). LR was higher after curettage (18.4%) than after resection (4.6%; p = 0.008). Neither pathological fracture (p = 0.240), Campanacci grade (p = 0.734), soft-tissue extension (p = 0.297), or tumour size (p = 0.872) affected the risk of recurrence. Joint salvage was possible in 74% of patients overall (262/354), and 98% after curettage alone (262/267). Of 49 patients with LR after curettage, 44 (90%) underwent repeated curettage and joint salvage. For patients treated by curettage, only age less than 30 years (p = 0.042) and location in the distal radius (p = 0.043) predicted higher LR. The rate of LR did not differ whether cement or bone graft was used (p = 0.753), but may have been reduced by the use of hydrogen peroxide (p = 0.069). Complications occurred in 15.3% of cases (54/354) and did not differ by treatment. Most patients with a GCTB can undergo successful joint salvage by aggressive curettage, even in the presence of a soft-tissue mass, pathological fracture, or a large lesion, with an 18.4% risk of local recurrence. However, 90% of local relapses after curettage can be treated by repeat joint salvage. Maximizing joint salvage is important to optimize long-term function since most patients with a GCTB are young adults. Younger patients and those with distal radius tumours treated with joint-sparing procedures have a higher rate of local relapse and may require more aggressive treatment and closer follow-up.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bone & Joint JournalSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207