MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394610215 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31040157

Current Concepts in the Treatment of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone: An Update

2024· article· en· W4394610215 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shinji Tsukamoto, Andreas F. Mavrogenis, Tomoya Masunaga, Kanya Honoki, Hiromasa Fujii, Akira Kido, Yasuhito Tanaka, Costantino Errani

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabSacrumGiant-cell tumor of boneZoledronic acidSurgeryPelvisCurettageGiant cellRadiologyOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curettage is recommended for the treatment of Campanacci stages 1-2 giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) in the extremities, pelvis, sacrum, and spine, without preoperative denosumab treatment. In the distal femur, bone chips and plate fixation are utilized to reduce damage to the subchondral bone and prevent pathological fracture, respectively. For local recurrence, re-curettage may be utilized when feasible. En bloc resection is an option for very aggressive Campanacci stage 3 GCTB in the extremities, pelvis, sacrum, and spine, combined with 1-3 doses of preoperative denosumab treatment. Denosumab monotherapy once every 3 months is currently the standard strategy for inoperable patients and those with metastatic GCTB. However, in case of tumor growth, a possible malignant transformation should be considered. Zoledronic acid appears to be as effective as denosumab; nevertheless, it is a more cost-effective option. Therefore, zoledronic acid may be an alternative treatment option, particularly in developing countries. Surgery is the mainstay treatment for malignant GCTB.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.350 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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