Outcomes and quality of life assessment in patients undergoing endoscopic surgery for pituitary adenomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The endoscopic technique is increasingly being used for the resection of pituitary adenomas. Its efficacy and safety have been generally accepted, but its impact on the quality of life of the patients treated has not been previously addressed. Most of the studies assessing the quality of life after long-term cure of pituitary adenomas suggest a significantly impaired quality of life (QoL) in all subgroups of pituitary tumours. In our study we analyse QoL data following endoscopic surgery, and attempt comparisons with normative and data from standard approaches. The validated health questionnaire SF-36 was sent to 80 patients who had undergone pure endoscopic resection of a pituitary adenoma. Fifty-four patients returned the completed questionnaire. Outcomes were compared with normative data for the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Heath survey for the general Canadian population. We also compared the results amongst different types of adenomas. We attempted a comparison to previous studies on quality of life for patients who underwent conventional trans-sphenoidal surgery. Our study suggests only minimal impairment of quality of life in patients after successful treatment of pituitary adenomas using the endoscopic approach. There were only very few differences in the perceived quality of life within the different subgroups of adenomas. There was a trend to improved scores in the endoscopic group compared with previous studies in patients treated by conventional approaches. Whilst our data suggest minimal impact on the quality of life for patients after endoscopic removal of pituitary adenomas, further studies with larger number of patients and longer follow-up are required to encourage this finding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".