MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292362404 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4677

Evaluation and Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism: Summary Statement and Guidelines from the Fifth International Workshop

2020· review· en· W4292362404 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Bilezikian, Aliya Khan, Shonni J. Silverberg, Ghada El‐Hajj Fuleihan, Claudio Marcocci, Salvatore Minisola, Nancy D. Perrier, Antonio Sitges‐Serra, Rajesh V. Thakker, Gordon Guyatt, Michael Mannstadt, John T. Potts, B.L. Clarke, Maria Luisa Brandi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
FundersAmerican Society for Bone and Mineral ResearchSociety for EndocrinologyTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanySociety for Academic Emergency Medicine
KeywordsMedicinePrimary hyperparathyroidismGrading (engineering)Task forceMEDLINEEpidemiologyRandomized controlled trialModalitiesMedical physicsPathologySurgeryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last international guidelines on the evaluation and management of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) were published in 2014. Research since that time has led to new insights into epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, measurements, genetics, outcomes, presentations, new imaging modalities, target and other organ systems, pregnancy, evaluation, and management. Advances in all these areas are demonstrated by the reference list in which the majority of listings were published after the last set of guidelines. It was thus, timely to convene an international group of over 50 experts to review these advances in our knowledge. Four Task Forces considered: 1. Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Genetics; 2. Classical and Nonclassical Features; 3. Surgical Aspects; and 4. Management. For Task Force 4 on the Management of PHPT, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology addressed surgical management of asymptomatic PHPT and non-surgical medical management of PHPT. The findings of this systematic review that applied GRADE methods to randomized trials are published as part of this series. Task Force 4 also reviewed a much larger body of new knowledge from observations studies that did not specifically fit the criteria of GRADE methodology. The full reports of these 4 Task Forces immediately follow this summary statement. Distilling the essence of all deliberations of all Task Force reports and Methodological reviews, we offer, in this summary statement, evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the evaluation and management of PHPT. Different from the conclusions of the last workshop, these deliberations have led to revisions of renal guidelines and more evidence for the other recommendations. The accompanying papers present an in-depth discussion of topics summarized in this report. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.317
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations511
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207