ArticleBrain & spine2023
Development and external validation of clinical prediction models for pituitary surgery.
Article in Brain & spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinically informed preoperative risk stratification for MRI-defined non gross-total resection in nonfunctioning pituitary neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center internal validation study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Factors affecting hormonal outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for non-functioning pituitary neuroendocrine tumors: a prospective observational study.Neurosurgical review · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gross total resection (GTR), Biochemical Remission (BR) and restitution of a priorly disrupted hypothalamus pituitary axis (new improvement, IMP) are important factors in pituitary adenoma (PA) resection surgery. Prediction of these metrics using simple and preoperatively available data might help improve patient care and contribute to a more personalized medicine. Research question: This study aims to develop machine learning models predicting GTR, BR, and IMP in PA resection surgery, using preoperatively available data. Material and methods: With data from patients undergoing endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for PAs machine learning models for prediction of GTR, BR and IMP were developed and externally validated. Development was carried out on a registry from Bologna, Italy while external validation was conducted using patient data from Zurich, Switzerland. Results: The model development cohort consisted of 1203 patients. GTR was achieved in 207 (17.2%, 945 (78.6%) missing), BR in 173 (14.4%, 992 (82.5%) missing) and IMP in 208 (17.3%, 167 (13.9%) missing) cases. In the external validation cohort 206 patients were included and GTR was achieved in 121 (58.7%, 32 (15.5%) missing), BR in 46 (22.3%, 145 (70.4%) missing) and IMP in 42 (20.4%, 7 (3.4%) missing) cases. The AUC at external validation amounted to 0.72 (95% CI: 0.63-0.80) for GTR, 0.69 (0.52-0.83) for BR, as well as 0.82 (0.76-0.89) for IMP. Discussion and conclusion: All models showed adequate generalizability, performing similarly in training and external validation, confirming the possible potentials of machine learning in helping to adapt surgical therapy to the individual patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.