Hydatid disease of the distal humerus treated with wide resection and reconstruction with endoprosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A man in his 40s from a rural area presented with progressive pain and functional limitation of the right arm without trauma. Imaging revealed an aggressive lytic lesion with pathological fracture of the distal humerus. Staging studies excluded other lesions. Percutaneous biopsy confirmed osseous hydatid disease. Preoperative albendazole was administered, followed by wide en bloc resection of a 15 cm humeral segment with preservation of neurovascular structures. Reconstruction was achieved using a modular distal humerus endoprosthesis. Postoperative albendazole continued for 6 weeks. At 12 months, the patient was disease-free, with a painless range of motion from 0° to 120°, full independence in daily activities and a Toronto Extremity Salvage Score of 75. This case demonstrates the importance of considering hydatid disease in the differential diagnosis of lytic bone lesions in endemic areas and supports limb-sparing reconstruction as a viable alternative.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".