Variability in perioperative management of pheochromocytoma in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite recent consensus guidelines, there is substantial variability in the management of pheochromocytomas. Our study aimed to characterize the current state of perioperative pheochromocytoma management by Canadian surgeons. METHODS: A 23-item online survey was sent to Canadian surgeons who perform adrenalectomies for pheochromocytoma. We assessed personal and institutional practices, including preoperative and postoperative management. RESULTS: National response rate was 51.8%. Surgeons from nine provinces responded; the majority were general surgeons (70.4%). Reviewing pheochromocytoma patients at a multidisciplinary tumor board was not routine practice (12%) and only 42.3% consistently referred patients for genetic testing. Preoperative α- and β-blockade at half of the respondent institutions were performed by endocrinology alone (53.8%), with the other half employing a multidisciplinary approach. Half of respondents admitted their pheochromocytoma patients to hospital prior to the day of surgery. Postoperatively, 11.5% of respondents routinely admitted their patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) for monitoring based on personal preference or institutional convention. Multivariate analyses found no significant relationships between demographics or preoperative factors and perioperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative surgical management of patients undergoing adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma was highly variable across Canada. Less than half of respondents routinely refer patients for genetic testing, despite recent practice guidelines. Surgeon preference and institutional convention are the main drivers behind preoperative admission and routine postoperative ICU admission, despite a lack of evidence to support this practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".