Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36085340›Full record

ArticlePituitary2022

Historical and future trends in emergency pituitary referrals: a machine learning analysis.

A S Pandit, D Z Khan, J G Hanrahan, N L Dorward, S E Baldeweg, P Nachev, H J Marcus

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pituitary, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Analysing Patterns in Electronic Optometry Referrals: Feasibility and Methodology.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Pituitary and SARS CoV-2: An unremitting conundrum.Best practice & research. Clinical endocrinology & metabolism · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A S Pandit *High-Dimensional Neurology, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
D Z Khan *Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
J G HanrahanVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
N L DorwardVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
S E BaldewegDepartment of Diabetes and Endocrinology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
P NachevHigh-Dimensional Neurology, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
H J MarcusVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK. hani.marcus@ucl.ac.uk.
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK Pre-doctoral FellowshipNational Institute of Health and Care Research Academic Clinical FellowshipRoyal College of Surgeons of England One-Year Research FellowshipWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 213038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAcute pituitary referrals to neurosurgical services frequently necessitate emergency care. Yet, a detailed characterisation of pituitary emergency referral patterns, including how they may change prospectively is lacking. This study aims to evaluate historical and current pituitary referral patterns and utilise state-of-the-art machine learning tools to predict future service use.

methodsA data-driven analysis was performed using all available electronic neurosurgical referrals (2014-2021) to the busiest U.K. pituitary centre. Pituitary referrals were characterised and volumes were predicted using an auto-regressive moving average model with a preceding seasonal and trend decomposition using Loess step (STL-ARIMA), compared against a Convolutional Neural Network-Long Short-Term Memory (CNN-LSTM) algorithm, Prophet and two standard baseline forecasting models. Median absolute, and median percentage error scoring metrics with cross-validation were employed to evaluate algorithm performance.

results462 of 36,224 emergency referrals were included (referring centres = 48; mean patient age = 56.7 years, female:male = 0.49:0.51). Emergency medicine and endocrinology accounted for the majority of referrals (67%). The most common presentations were headache (47%) and visual field deficits (32%). Lesions mainly comprised tumours or haemorrhage (85%) and involved the pituitary gland or fossa (70%). The STL-ARIMA pipeline outperformed CNN-LSTM, Prophet and baseline algorithms across scoring metrics, with standard accuracy being achieved for yearly predictions. Referral volumes significantly increased from the start of data collection with future projected increases (p < 0.001) and did not significantly reduce during the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionThis work is the first to employ large-scale data and machine learning to describe and predict acute pituitary referral volumes, estimate future service demands, explore the impact of system stressors (e.g. COVID pandemic), and highlight areas for service improvement.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pituitary DiseasesFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPituitary GlandReferral and ConsultationCOVID-19Machine learningReferralsService demandTime-series forecasting

Identifiers

PMID36085340
PMCPMC9462621
OpenAlexW4295048071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.