Consensus guideline for the diagnosis and management of pituitary adenomas in childhood and adolescence: Part 2, specific diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pituitary adenomas are rare in children and young people under the age of 19 (hereafter referred to as CYP) but they pose some different diagnostic and management challenges in this age group than in adults. These rare neoplasms can disrupt maturational, visual, intellectual and developmental processes and, in CYP, they tend to have more occult presentation, aggressive behaviour and are more likely to have a genetic basis than in adults. Through standardized AGREE II methodology, literature review and Delphi consensus, a multidisciplinary expert group developed 74 pragmatic management recommendations aimed at optimizing care for CYP in the first-ever comprehensive consensus guideline to cover the care of CYP with pituitary adenoma. Part 2 of this consensus guideline details 57 recommendations for paediatric patients with prolactinomas, Cushing disease, growth hormone excess causing gigantism and acromegaly, clinically non-functioning adenomas, and the rare TSHomas. Compared with adult patients with pituitary adenomas, we highlight that, in the CYP group, there is a greater proportion of functioning tumours, including macroprolactinomas, greater likelihood of underlying genetic disease, more corticotrophinomas in boys aged under 10 years than in girls and difficulty of peri-pubertal diagnosis of growth hormone excess. Collaboration with pituitary specialists caring for adult patients, as part of commissioned and centralized multidisciplinary teams, is key for optimizing management, transition and lifelong care and facilitates the collection of health-related quality of survival outcomes of novel medical, surgical and radiotherapeutic treatments, which are currently largely missing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".