Proximal femoral tumor resection followed by joint prosthesis replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study aimed to determine the prognostic outcome of hip joint replacement after resection of proximal femoral tumors by reviewing original studies. Methods Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to July 17, 2022. Then, the literature was screened by inclusion criteria. The basic information, primary outcomes, and secondary outcomes were extracted for weighted combined analysis. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results Twenty-four retrospective cohort studies comprising 2081 patients were included. The limb salvage rate was 98%. The survival rates at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were 80, 72, 65, 64, and 55% for patients with primary tumors and the rate at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were 44, 25, 17, 14, and 11% for patients with bone metastases, respectively. Conclusion As chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment progressed, joint reconstruction after proximal femoral tumor resection improved patients' function and quality of life.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".