Bibliographic record
Abstract
The giant-cell tumor was recognized more than a hundred years ago by Sir Astley Cooper, who, in 1818, described the following physical signs: swelling, expansion of bone, ulceration, sloughing, and bloody discharge. The benign nature of the tumor is said to have been pointed out first by Lebert in 1845. Later, Paget, in 1853, gave what Bloodgood declared to be the most accurate description of the tumor ever published. In a lengthy monograph, N#{233}laton, in 1860, described in full the gross, microscopic, and clinical features of the disease, and emphasized the fact that it is only locally malignant. Two years later, Virchow suggested that the giant-cell tumor might recur and might even prove malignant. He alluded to the “ degeneration into cancer “ spoken of by authors since Pare and Fernel. In opposition to this, Gross, in 1879, gave a detailed analysis of seventy cases and insisted on the benign character of the lesion. He pointed out the difficulty of distinguishing it from the ma-lignant medullary sarcoma of aneurysmal type. In more recent years, Bloodgood, Codman, and William B. Coley have contributed conspicuously to our knowledge of this tumor, as have Nov#{233}-Josserand and Tavernier, Platt, and Barrie. We find Pfahler and Herendeen in the vanguard of the steadily in-creasing number of radiologists who are staunch advocates of radiation for this type of tumor. Among the pathologists of our day to whose intensive and pains-taking study we owe much of our knowledge of the nature of the giant-cell tumor, are Ewing, Mallory, Goforth, and Stewart. Finally, and of outstanding importance, is the part played by the
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".