MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035565559 · doi:10.1097/ten.0b013e31819428e4

Pregnancies in Women With Dopamine Agonist-Resistant Macroprolactinomas

2009· article· en· W2035565559 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Corenblum, Lauren J MacKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Endocrinologist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBromocriptineMedicinePregnancyDopamine agonistProlactinomaDopaminePituitary tumorsAgonistInternal medicineEndocrinologyProlactinObstetricsGynecologyHormoneDopaminergicReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The symptomatic enlargement of macroprolactinomas during pregnancy is a concern. Bromocriptine has been used to reverse any symptomatic changes. This intervention may not be successful with dopamine-resistant macroadenomas. We are not aware of any report of the outcome of a pregnancy in such women. New mass symptoms in pregnancy reflect an increase in the tumor mass and/or the physiologic increase in size of the normal pituitary. The latter should maintain responsiveness to the effect of bromocriptine, and thus on the mass symptoms. We report 3 pregnancies in 2 women with treatment-resistant macroprolactinomas, who successfully achieve and complete pregnancy. The second case includes a unique report of clinical response of mass symptoms to bromocriptine during pregnancy in the presence of a resistant macroprolactinoma. It is possible that it is the normal pituitary, and not the tumor, that enlarges during pregnancy and precipitates the mass symptoms. Women with dopamine agonist-resistant macroprolactinomas may be able to be treated if needed and, thus, may undergo a successful pregnancy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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 venueThe EndocrinologistSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207