Acceleration of Luteinizing Hormone Pulse Frequency in Adolescent Girls with a History of Central Precocious Puberty with versus without Hyperandrogenism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Some adolescents with a history of idiopathic central precocious puberty (ICPP) develop hyperandrogenism. HYPOTHESIS: Luteinizing hormone (LH) hypersecretion could be a common mechanism underlying ICPP and polycystic ovary syndrome. AIM: To explore the GnRH-LH axis in those patients. DESIGN: To compare overnight LH secretion in 7 healthy adolescents (CG) with that in patients with prior ICPP [5 with (CPPA) and 7 without (CPPB) hyperandrogenism]. To analyze daytime LH secretion in those patients. METHODS: LH secretion was quantified by immunofluorometry and deconvolution analysis. RESULTS: Nighttime mean LH (international units/liter) was higher in CPPA (6.9 +/- 1.5) than in CPPB (3.2 +/- 0.4, p < 0.05) and CG (2.9 +/- 0.4, p < 0.01). Deconvolution analysis revealed a greater nighttime LH frequency (pulses/hour) both in CPPA (0.91 +/- 0.06, p < 0.01) and CPPB (0.74 +/- 0.02, p < 0.05) than in CG (0.45 +/- 0.07). CPPA patients maintained a higher frequency than CPPB. Pulsatile LH production was greater in CPPA than in CG (50 +/- 12 vs. 18 +/- 3 IU/l/day, p < 0.01). Daytime mass of LH released per burst and pulsatile production rate were significantly greater in CPPA than in CPPB patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperandrogenic adolescents with prior ICPP show increased pulsatile LH secretion. Augmentation of LH pulsatility may predispose to or cause hyperandrogenism in some adolescents with a history of precocious puberty.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".