MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413020271 · doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2025.07.024

Thyroid Arterial Embolization for the Management of Benign and Malignant Thyroid Disease: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4413020271 on OpenAlexaff
Hannelore I. Coerts, Brooke D’Mello, Frederik A. Verburg, Jesse D. Pasternak, Menno R. Vriens, Pieter‐Jan van Doormaal, Tessa M. van Ginhoven

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrine Practice · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroidThyroid diseaseRadiologyEmbolizationThyroid nodulesArterial EmbolizationDiseasePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Thyroid arterial embolization (TAE) is a minimally invasive procedure that reduces blood flow to the thyroid gland by injecting particles into the superior and/or inferior thyroid artery. It has been sporadically used for goiter, Graves' disease, thyrotoxicosis, and thyroid cancers, but no reviews have assessed its safety and efficacy. METHODS: Databases were searched until January 2024. English-language studies on TAE were included. Studies using TAE for arterial aneurysms or lacking full text were excluded. No meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 1203 retrieved articles, 24 studies met inclusion criteria: TAE was used for goiter (8 studies), Graves' disease (8), thyroid malignancy (5), and thyrotoxicosis (4). The primary outcome was safety and efficacy. Limited evidence suggested benefits, including goiter size reduction and symptom relief with minimal complications like neck pain and hematoma. In Graves' disease, TAE induced hormonal and immunologic changes, normalizing thyroid function in some patients. In thyroid cancer, it alleviated symptoms and facilitated safer surgery. However, serious risks, including nontarget embolization and mortality, require caution. CONCLUSION: This review presents an overview of the literature regarding safety and efficacy of TAE. The lack of robust data, significant risk of serious complications (including nontarget embolization and mortality), and absence of a standardized, safe protocol preclude recommending TAE as a routine treatment option. Given the high efficacy and lower complication rates of current established therapies, TAE should only be considered in exceptional circumstances, when standard treatments have failed or are contraindicated, and then only at specialized centers with extensive embolization expertise.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrine PracticeSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207