Stalking the stalk: Isolated pituitary stalk thickening and predictive factors for proliferative disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Few studies have evaluated predictive factors of isolated pituitary stalk thickening (iPST) in children. Methods In this retrospective study, radiology, endocrinology, and neuro-oncology databases were interrogated to identify patients with iPST between January 2000 and June 2019. A blinded, longitudinal assessment of MRIs was performed using quantitative, semi-quantitative, and qualitative metrics. Neuroimaging parameters were correlated to clinical parameters. Results Forty-seven patients were identified, with 40 meeting the inclusion criteria. Median age at baseline MRI was 9.6 years (range 0.9–17.5) with median follow-up of 5.2 years (range 0.3–18.6). Twenty-five (63%) were female. Thirty-four (85%) had pituitary dysfunction, including 31 with central diabetes insipidus (cDI). cDI was not predictive of proliferative disease (PfD): 69% of those with presumed primary hypophysitis (PPH) versus 93% with PfD (P = .1). Fourteen (35%) patients were diagnosed with PfD (germinoma = 8, Langerhans cell histiocytosis = 5, lymphoma = 1) at median of 1.3 years (range 0.3–4.0) after initial MRI. Progressive thickening of the stalk over time was associated with PfD (86% vs 4% in PPH, P < .0001), as was thickening of the entire stalk (56% in PfD vs 27% in PPH, P < .0001) with different imaging trends over time observed in PfD versus PPH. A “sack of marbles” appearance with heterogeneous enhancement on post-contrast imaging was associated with germinoma. Conclusions In this cohort, 35% of children with iPST were diagnosed with PfD. The association of cDI and PfD was not statistically significant. Progressive thickening of the entire stalk was predictive of PfD and a “sack of marbles” pattern was found to be highly suggestive of germinoma.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".