Systematic review of fluorescence-guided surgery in pituitary neuroendocrine tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Fluorescence-guided surgery represents a potential novel technique to improve the extent of tumour resection, minimise resection of normal tissue, and optimise outcomes in pituitary neuroendocrine tumour surgery. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on this topic to define the current role for fluorescence-guided surgery in this setting. Design and methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched on 1st March 2025 for studies investigating the use of exogenous fluorophores or autofluorescence in pituitary surgery. Two authors independently screened studies and extracted data from included studies. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: From 1,604 studies identified, 22 studies involving 297 patients were included. Risk of bias was high in the vast majority of studies. Studies on six exogenous fluorophores were identified (indocyanine green, OTL38, bevacizumab-800CW, chlorin E6 photosensitiser, 5-aminolevulinic acid, and sodium fluorescein), with three studies assessing autofluorescence. Findings of included studies were variable, with small sample sizes and limited outcome reporting. 5-Aminolevulinic acid seems to have little use as a fluorophore in pituitary surgery. The clinical utility of the remaining fluorophores is not yet clearly defined. There are limited data on the utility of autofluorescence in pituitary surgery. Conclusion: At present, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of fluorescence-guided surgery in this setting, prompting the need for further research in this area.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".