MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W191418814 · doi:10.1093/pch/15.7.411

Adrenal suppression: An under-recognized complication of a common therapy

2010· article· en· W191418814 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen B. Goldbloom, Alexandra Ahmet

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal Hormones and Disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMorningAsthmaEveningFluticasoneHypoglycemiaHypercortisolemiaHydrocortisoneAdrenal crisisCorticosteroidAdrenal insufficiencyCushingoidAnesthesiaEmergency departmentPhysical examinationKetonuriaInhalerInternal medicineInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A five-year-old girl presented to the emergency department with a seizure. A bedside glucose measurement confirmed that she had hypoglycemia (blood glucose level of 1.6 mmol/L). A venous blood glucose measurement confirmed the bedside result. The seizure resolved with the administration of intravenous dextrose and phenobarbitol. She had a three-year history of asthma for which she had been prescribed a fluticasone inhaler and instructed to take two puffs, morning and night (500 μg/day). During asthma exacerbations, her parents were administering extra doses. She had not received any oral glucocorticoids (GCs). In the months preceding presentation, she had been mildly fatigued but otherwise well. There was no identified precipitating event (eg, fever or acute illness); there were no missed doses of fluticasone. On physical examination, the girl appeared small but well. Her weight and height had fallen from the 25th percentile to the 10th percentile over the course of one year. She was not cushingoid and her skin was not hyperpigmented. The examination was otherwise unremarkable. Following resolution of the seizure, venous blood gas and serum electrolytes were normal; however, a urine test was positive for ketones.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicAdrenal Hormones and DisordersFrench-language works237,207