Impact of Technique on Cushing Disease Outcome Using Strict Remission Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cushing disease (CD) constitutes a challenging condition for the pituitary surgeon. Given the variety of factors affecting outcomes in CD, it is uncertain whether the newer endoscopic technique improves the results of surgery. METHODS: A review was conducted of CD cases at our institution between 2000 and 2010. Analysis was done to: determine if surgical technique had an effect on outcome, identify the predictors of outcome and provide details of failed cases. Remission was defined as normal postoperative 24-hour urinary free cortisol (24-h UFC), suppression of morning serum cortisol to <50 nmol/L after 1mg of dexamethasone or being dependent on steroid replacement. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met our inclusion criteria. Average follow-up period was 33 months. There were 15 macroadenomas and 27 microadenomas. Seventeen patients had an endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery and twenty-five patients had a microscopic transsphenoidal procedure. Long-term overall remission was achieved in 26 (62%) patients. There was no significant difference in remission rates between the two techniques (p value 0.757). Patient's subjective symptomatic improvement and drop of morning serum cortisol in the postoperative period to less than 100 nmol/L correlated with long-term remission (p value 0.0031 and 0.0101, respectively) while repeat surgery was the only predictor of the lack of postoperative remission (p value 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Revision surgery predicted poor remission rate for CD. Within the power of our study size, there was no difference in outcome between the endoscopic and microscopic approaches. Surgical outcomes should be reviewed in association with remission criteria used in a study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".