MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017622598 · doi:10.14341/probl200955219-22

Radioiodine therapy for Graves disease as a risk factor of endocrine ophthalmopathy

2009· article· en· W2017622598 on OpenAlexaff
М. С. Шеремета, И. М. Беловалова, N. Yu. Sviridenko

Bibliographic record

VenueProblems of Endocrinology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Eye Disorders
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectIncidence (geometry)Endocrine systemInternal medicineThyroidHormoneGraves' ophthalmopathyThyroid-stimulating hormoneGastroenterologyRadioactive iodineGraves' diseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1973 and 1976 2 cases of endocrine ophthalmopathy (EO) after external irradiation of the anterior surface of the neck due to a tumor (Hodgkin's lymphoma) was described. Further observations showed that treatment of Graves' disease (BG) with radioactive iodine (131I) can worsen the course of EO. So, L. De Groot et al., Observing 264 patients after exposure to 131I for BG, found progression of EO in 4% of patients after the 1st course of therapy and in 12% after subsequent sessions. Later the appearance or significant progression of EO in patients treated with 131I has been observed. Some studies have shown that the progression of EO after treatment with 131I without glucocorticoids administration can be observed in 18-30% of cases. Along with this, there is an opinion that 131I does not affect the incidence of clinical symptoms in the orbit and that hypothyroidism that occurs after it does not lead to the progression of eye symptoms. The relationship between treatment and the onset or progression of EO is not clear. Nevertheless, there is evidence of an adverse effect of an elevated level of antibodies to the thyroid stimulating hormone receptor in the blood serum after 131I training for EO.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProblems of EndocrinologySame topicOphthalmology and Eye DisordersFrench-language works237,207