Health-related quality of life of young adults with Turner syndrome following a long-term randomized controlled trial of recombinant human growth hormone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited long-term randomized controlled trials of growth hormone (GH) supplementation to adult height and few published reports of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following treatment. The present follow-up study of young adults from a long-term controlled trial of GH treatment in patients with Turner syndrome (TS) yielded data to examine whether GH supplementation resulted in a higher HRQOL (either due to taller stature or from the knowledge that active treatment and not placebo had been received) or alternatively a lower HRQOL (due to medicalization from years of injections). METHODS: The original trial randomized 154 Canadian girls with TS aged 7-13 years from 13 centres to receive either long-term GH injections at the pharmacologic dose of 0.3 mg/kg/week or to receive no injections; estrogen prescription for induction of puberty was standardized. Patients were eligible for the follow-up study if they were at least 16 years old at the time of follow-up. The instrument used to study HRQOL was the SF-36, summarized into physical and mental component scales (PCS and MCS); higher scores indicate better HRQOL. RESULTS: Thirty-four of the 48 eligible participants (71%) consented to participate; data were missing for one patient. Both groups (GH and no treatment) had normal HRQOL at this post-treatment assessment. The GH group had a (mean ± SD) PCS score of 56 ± 5; the untreated group 58 ± 4; mean score for 16-24 year old females in the general population 53.5 ± 6.9. The GH group had a mean MCS score of 52 ± 6; the untreated group 49 ± 13; mean score for 16-24 year old females in the general population 49.6 ± 9.8. Secondary analyses showed no relationship between HRQOL and height. CONCLUSIONS: We found no benefit or adverse effect on HRQOL either from receiving or not receiving growth hormone injections in a long-term randomized controlled trial, confirming larger observational studies. We suggest that it remains ethically acceptable as well as necessary to maintain a long-term untreated control group to estimate the effects of pharmacological agents to manipulate adult height. Young adult women with TS have normal HRQOL suggesting that they adjust well to their challenges in life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00191113.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".