Conservative Management of Pituitary Macroadenoma Contacting the Optic Apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the tumor characteristics and visual function in conservatively managed patients with non-functioning pituitary macroadenoma (NFMA) that contacted/compressed the visual pathway. DESIGN: Retrospective case-series. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic institution. PARTICIPANTS: Six patients with diagnosis of NFMA. MAIN OUTCOME: Visual function and radiological characteristics of the optic apparatus and pituitary tumor. RESULTS: All patients had radiological evidence of optic apparatus compression but only one had visual field defect at the initial presentation. While two of the six patients developed visual field changes during followup (41±34.8 months), the patient with visual field defect at the time of diagnosis improved to normal vision. CONCLUSIONS: Select NFMAs that contact the optic apparatus, without visual dysfunction, may be managed with close ophthalmological and radiographic monitoring, depending on tumor and imaging characteristics. This may be of particular relevance in patients considered to have a high peri-operative risk, such as advanced age or significant co-morbidities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".