Microwave ablation vs. parathyroidectomy for secondary hyperparathyroidism in maintenance hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a serious and common problem in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Minimally invasive microwave ablation (MWA) has been used to treat SHPT and shows some advantages. However, its efficacy is still undefined. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of MWA compared to total parathyroidectomy plus forearm autotransplantation. METHODS: The SHPT patients who were undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (follow-up for 6 to 24 months after treatments) were divided into a MWA group (n = 33) and a parathyroidectomy group (n = 48). The efficacy (serum intact parathyroid hormone [iPTH], calcium, and phosphorus levels) and safety (hoarseness, hypocalcaemia, and persistently low iPTH) were compared between the two groups. Additionally, the study explored potential predictors of response to MWA by a logistic regression analysis. FINDINGS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The rates of achieving the recommended goal for iPTH were significantly higher in the MWA group than that in the parathyroidectomy group at all follow-up times: 57.58% vs. 12.50% at one-day (P < 0.001), 45.45% vs. 16.67% at 1-week (P = 0.005), 57.58% vs. 16.67% at 2-week (P < 0.001), 57.58% vs. 22.92% at 1-month (P = 0.002), and 69.70% vs. 35.42% at 3-month (P = 0.002), 76.47% vs. 28.57% at 6-month (P = 0.005), 87.50% vs. 47.37% at 12-month (P = 0.008), and 81.82% vs. 52.63% at 24-month (P = 0.015), respectively. However, there were no significant differences for phosphorus or calcium at any of the follow-up times (P > 0.05). The persistently low iPTH was more in the parathyroidectomy group (64.6%) than that in the MWA group (0%) (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in hoarseness or hypocalcaemia (P > 0.05). Baseline levels of iPTH (P = 0.021) and patient age (P = 0.011) were determined as predictors by univariate logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION: The MWA could be an alternative to parathyroidectomy for SHPT but its eventual superiority has to be demonstrated by a proper 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".