MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969302053 · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2783

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Metabolic and Respiratory Effects of Growth Hormone in Children With Cystic Fibrosis

2007· article· en· W1969302053 on OpenAlexaff
Dirk Schnabel, Corinna Grasemann, Doris Staab, H Wollmann, Félix Ratjen

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineGrowth hormone treatmentPlaceboCystic fibrosisInternal medicineAdverse effectDoseVital capacityHormoneGastroenterologyEndocrinologyGrowth hormoneLungLung functionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Positive effects of growth hormone therapy on growth, nutritional status, and lung function have been observed in patients with cystic fibrosis, but the current evidence is based on unblinded studies that involved a small number of patients. This trial was designed as a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to assess the efficacy and safety of 2 dosages of growth hormone in cystic fibrosis. METHODS: Sixty-three dystrophic patients with cystic fibrosis were randomly assigned for 24 weeks to 1 of 3 treatment arms: growth hormone dosage of 0.11 IU/kg body weight per day, growth hormone dosage of 0.21 IU/kg body weight per day, or placebo. The 24-week double-blind period was followed by an open treatment period of 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in percentage predicted from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were changes in height, weight, and exercise tolerance. RESULTS: Height, growth velocity, and growth factors (insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3) increased significantly in both treatment groups, whereas weight gain did not differ between the growth hormone groups and placebo. A trend toward improvement in absolute forced vital capacity was observed in patients who received the higher growth hormone dosage, whereas forced expiratory volume in 1 second did not change significantly with growth hormone treatment. Maximal oxygen uptake during peak exercise increased significantly in treated patients. There were no significant differences in the frequency or severity of adverse effects or in the incidence of abnormalities in glucose metabolism. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in the group investigated, growth hormone therapy was well tolerated and had positive metabolic effects but did not result in short-term improvement of lung function in patients with cystic fibrosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207