MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029059844 · doi:10.1210/jc.2007-2437

Evaluation and Treatment of Hirsutism in Premenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

2008· review· en· W2029059844 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Public Health ServiceUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicinehirsutismGuidelineTask forceGrading (engineering)Clinical PracticeGynecologyFamily medicineInternal medicinePathologyPolitical scienceObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of hirsutism in premenopausal women. PARTICIPANTS: The Task Force was composed of a chair, selected by the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee (CGS) of The Endocrine Society, six additional experts, two methodologists, and a medical writer. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. EVIDENCE: Systematic reviews of available evidence were used to formulate the key treatment and prevention recommendations. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) group criteria to describe both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. We used "recommend" for strong recommendations, and "suggest" for weak recommendations. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during one group meeting, several conference calls, and e-mail communications. The drafts prepared by the Task Force with the help of a medical writer were reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's CGS, Clinical Affairs Core Committee (CACC), and Council. The version approved by the CGS and CACC was placed on The Endocrine Society's Web site for comments by members. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest testing for elevated androgen levels in women with moderate or severe hirsutism or hirsutism of any degree when it is sudden in onset, rapidly progressive, or associated with other abnormalities such as menstrual dysfunction, obesity, or clitoromegaly. For women with patient-important hirsutism despite cosmetic measures, we suggest either pharmacological therapy or direct hair removal methods. For pharmacological therapy, we suggest oral contraceptives for the majority of women, adding an antiandrogen after 6 months if the response is suboptimal. We recommend against antiandrogen monotherapy unless adequate contraception is used. We suggest against using insulin-lowering drugs. For women who choose hair removal therapy, we suggest laser/photoepilation.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.319 · 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