MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081847060 · doi:10.1002/jso.10043

Bone mineral density in well‐differentiated thyroid cancer patients treated with suppressive thyroxine: A systematic overview of the literature

2001· review· en· W2081847060 on OpenAlexaff
May Lynn Quan, Janice L. Pasieka, O.P. Rorstad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralConfoundingSubclinical infectionThyroid cancerBone remodelingInternal medicineOncologyThyroidectomyCancerMEDLINEEndocrinologyThyroidOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effects of subclinical hyperthyroidism on bone mineral density (BMD) induced by suppressive thyroxine therapy in patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) remains unclear. An overview of the current literature was undertaken to evaluate studies to date. METHODS: A systematic medline search yielded a total of 11 studies appropriate for review which included premenopausal women, postmenopausal women, and men on suppressive thyroxine post thyroidectomy for WDTC. Main outcome measures were bone mineral density and bone turnover markers. CONCLUSIONS: Although studies were limited by small numbers and varying degrees of control for confounding variables, results suggested no significant change in bone mineral density for premenopausal women or men. Findings for postmenopausal women remain unclear with two of the best controlled studies reporting opposing results. Further studies for this population are recommended to help guide clinical practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicThyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207