MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387380194 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvad114.474

SAT176 Comparison Of Prevalence For Normocalcemic Primary Hyperparathyroidism (NPHPT) Using Different 25(OH)D Levels: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4387380194 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iqra N. Farooqi, Xiangbing Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
Keywordsvitamin D deficiencyVitamin D and neurologyContext (archaeology)MedicinePopulationDemographyGeographyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disclosure: I.N. Farooqi: None. X. Wang: None. The familiar topic of vitamin D deficiency remains controversial in the context of bone metabolism and health, with findings supportive of differing thresholds for supplementation. While the Fifth International Workshop has not delineated exact cutoffs for 25(OH)D to rule out the secondary cause of vitamin D deficiency in evaluations of NPHPT, we believe higher thresholds will yield fewer rates of diagnosis. We postulate that a review of existing literature yields significant differences in the reported prevalence of NPHPT when comparing 25(OH)D cutoffs of ≥30ng/mL versus ≥20ng/mL. PubMed searches were conducted using the key words “normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism,” “prevalence,” “trial,” and 7400 studies were initially found. Excluding studies from before 2010, those using population sizes less than 100 subjects, and abstracts, we found a total of 14 articles for which full-text review was performed. We examined 9 studies using the 25(OH)D cutoff ≥20ng/mL and 5 studies using ≥30ng/mL for our analysis. Although research on NPHPT has been done worldwide, including Europe, East Asia, North and South Americas, none were found in Africa, South Asia, and Australia. Our review identified 9/14 studies in Canada, USA, UK, Sweden, Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium, and China which used 25(OH)D ≥20ng/mL to exclude vitamin D deficiency, with a prevalence range of 0.18-21%, averaging 5.81%. Conversely, the remaining 5/14 studies from Brazil, USA, Spain, and Italy using ≥30ng/mL as the lower limit of 25(OH)D for diagnosing NPHPT yielded prevalence rates ranging 0.02-8.9% with an average of 3.17%. The prevalence of NPHPT is 8.9% in the Brazilian study by Marques et al. in 2011 and 6% in the Spanish study by Garcia-Martin in 2012, while the remainder of North American and European studies using the ≥30ng/mL cutoff from 2015 onward reported prevalence rates of only 0.02-0.6%. Of the total number of publications reviewed since 2015, 30% of the studies implemented the higher threshold of ≥30ng/mL. Previously documented prevalence rates of NPHPT among healthy adults have used 25(OH)D ≥20ng/mL to define the exclusion of vitamin D deficiency; however, our current review of several studies since 2010 demonstrates a significantly lower prevalence of the disease when the cutoff is raised to ≥30ng/mL. Our findings suggest greater specificity in the exclusion of vitamin D deficiency in more recent publications. Recent research examining free 25(OH)D as a more effective marker for vitamin D status suggests total 25(OH)D ≥30ng/mL may still be insufficient to completely exclude vitamin D deficiency in NPHPT. Thus, the role of varying 25(OH)D cutoffs is interesting and requires further investigation on a geographic level, as it may provide more insight into interethnic variations, correlation with seasonality and sunlight exposure, and healthcare access in regions where such studies have yet to be conducted. Presentation: Saturday, June 17, 2023

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine Society→Same topicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→