Treatment of Adrenocorticotropin-Dependent Cushing’s Syndrome: A Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the published literature and reach a consensus on the treatment of patients with ACTH-dependent Cushing's syndrome, because there is no recent consensus on the management of this rare disorder. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two leading endocrinologists, clinicians, and neurosurgeons with specific expertise in the management of ACTH-dependent Cushing's syndrome representing nine countries were chosen to address 1) criteria for cure and remission of this disorder, 2) surgical treatment of Cushing's disease, 3) therapeutic options in the event of persistent disease after transsphenoidal surgery, 4) medical therapy of Cushing's disease, and 5) management of ectopic ACTH syndrome, Nelson's syndrome, and special patient populations. EVIDENCE: Participants presented published scientific data, which formed the basis of the recommendations. Opinion shared by a majority of experts was used where strong evidence was lacking. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Participants met for 2 d, during which there were four chaired sessions of presentations, followed by general discussion where a consensus was reached. The consensus statement was prepared by a steering committee and was then reviewed by all authors, with suggestions incorporated if agreed upon by the majority. CONCLUSIONS: ACTH-dependent Cushing's syndrome is a heterogeneous disorder requiring a multidisciplinary and individualized approach to patient management. Generally, the treatment of choice for ACTH-dependent Cushing's syndrome is curative surgery with selective pituitary or ectopic corticotroph tumor resection. Second-line treatments include more radical surgery, radiation therapy (for Cushing's disease), medical therapy, and bilateral adrenalectomy. Because of the significant morbidity of Cushing's syndrome, early diagnosis and prompt therapy are warranted.
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 | 0.086 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".