Accuracy of Testosterone Concentrations in Compounded Testosterone Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the testosterone concentrations within testosterone gels and creams manufactured by compounding pharmacies. METHODS: Ten compounding pharmacies within Toronto area were included. Pharmacies were blinded as to the nature of the study. A standardized prescription for 50 mg of compounded testosterone gel/cream applied once daily was presented to each pharmacy. Two independently compounded batches were analyzed from each pharmacy 1 month apart. Testosterone concentrations in a 5-g sachet of Androgel® 1% (Abbott) and 5-g tube of Testim®1% (Auxilium) were evaluated as controls. Samples were analyzed independently and in a blinded fashion by the Laboratory Medicine Program at the University Health Network. Measurement of testosterone concentration was performed using a modified liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry validated for serum testosterone. RESULTS: Compounded formulations included seven gels and three creams with a volume/daily dose ranging from 0.2 mL to 1.25 mL. Product cost ranged from $57.32 to $160.71 for a 30-day supply. There was significant variability both within and between pharmacies with respect to the measured concentration of testosterone in the compounded products. In contrast, the concentration of testosterone within Androgel and Testim was consistent and accurate. Collectively, only 50% (batch 1) and 30% (batch 2) of the compounding pharmacies provided a product with a testosterone concentration within ± 20% of the prescribed dose. Two pharmacies compounded products with >20% of the prescribed dose. One pharmacy compounded a product with essentially no testosterone. CONCLUSIONS: Testosterone concentrations in compounded testosterone products can be variable and potentially compromise the efficacy and safety of treatment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".