MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415784353 · doi:10.1016/j.cpsurg.2025.101934

Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring criteria in secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4415784353 on OpenAlexaff
Phillip Staibano, Michael Au, Han Zhang, Jesse D. Pasternak, Carolyn D. Seib, Lisa A. Orloff, Xing Xing, Sheila Yu, Winnie Liu, Jason W. Busse, Sameer Parpia, Nhu-Tram Nguyen, Tyler McKechnie, Alex Thabane, J. E. M. Young, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Problems in Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity Health NetworkMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTertiary hyperparathyroidismParathyroid hormoneSecondary hyperparathyroidismPrimary hyperparathyroidismHyperparathyroidismParathyroidectomyTertiary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Studies of intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) criteria in secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism are poor quality and preclude meta-analysis • Based on the current literature, we cannot recommend IOPTH criteria for secondary of tertiary hyperparathyroidism • Future high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the best IOPTH criteria for secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism There are no recommendations regarding optimal use of intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) to guide surgery for secondary (SHPT) or tertiary (THPT) hyperparathyroidism. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic performance of IOPTH criteria in SHPT and THPT. We performed a library search for primary research articles published from 1990 to 2024 that evaluated any IOPTH criteria in SHPT and THPT. We were unable to proceed with diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis due to low study quality, so we performed a descriptive analysis of diagnostic properties [e.g., positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)] for IOPTH criteria. Thirty-seven articles met inclusion criteria. Poor reporting quality amongst eligible prevented us from performing our planned diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis. Most studies (56.8%) investigated SHPT with follow-up ranging from 1–48 months. Most studies investigated Miami or modified Miami IOPTH criteria, but over 50% of studies did not report the reference standard. Present-day IOPTH criteria used in surgery for SHPT and THPT appeared to maintain the PPV, but the NPV ranged from 20.8%–70.6% in SHPT and 22.2%–50% in THPT. The poor quality of renal hyperparathyroidism research precludes pooled analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of IOPTH criteria in patients diagnosed with SHPT or THPT. Current IOPTH criteria may be unhelpful in these patients; hence, surgeons should continue to investigate methods and criteria for optimizing IOPTH during surgery for SHPT and THPT.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.014
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Problems in SurgerySame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207