Preconception counselling for women with acromegaly: More questions than answers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Approximately 174 pregnancies in acromegaly have been reported. Our objectives were to identify the key challenges of preconception counselling in this population. METHODS: Case series of three acromegalic women with desire for pregnancy. Issues were identified from chart review and discussion with attending physicians. Literature review of acromegaly and pregnancy was conducted. RESULTS: Important issues identified included: impact of acromegaly on fertility, management of acromegaly in the peripartum period, screening for associated conditions, risk of progression of acromegaly/tumour growth during pregnancy, impact of acromegaly on pregnancy outcomes, surveillance during pregnancy, method of delivery and impact on neonatal outcomes and breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy can be safely achieved in patients with acromegaly. There is little evidence to guide recommendations around conception and pregnancy surveillance. Patients can be reassured that in most situations, pregnancy proceeds without complication and that medical treatment can be used during pregnancy if necessary.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it