Scoping review for treatment of osteolysis in total ankle arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following total ankle replacement (TAR), osteolysis is a known complication. No consensus exists regarding management. METHODS: Applying the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping studies, a study protocol and a data extraction form was created. The research included all studies until March 2025. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-seven studies were identified, of which 54 studies (case series and case reports) were included. 69% of the studies included below 10 cases. The most common reported treatment was bone grafting in n = 36 (67%) of studies. The conversion of the TAR to an ankle fusion (n = 16 studies, 30%) was more frequent than the revision to a TAR (n = 15 studies, 28%). Eleven studies reported multiple treatment options. Long-term follow-up and standardized outcome measurements were infrequently discussed. CONCLUSION: This scoping review demonstrates that the existing literature is highly heterogeneous and insufficient to recommend standard treatment.
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 | 0.058 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".