MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088012194 · doi:10.1080/13685530701342686

Adding to the controversy: Pitfalls in the diagnosis of testosterone deficiency syndromes with questionnaires and biochemistry

2007· article· en· W2088012194 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aging Male · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTestosterone (patch)Intensive care medicinePhysiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the value of available questionnaires used for the diagnosis of testosterone deficiency syndromes (TDS) by correlating their ratings with a panel of hormonal determinations in a male population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants completed the ADAM questionnaire and underwent biochemical evaluation at the local site. Assessments determined entry into Group A (symptomatic) or Group B (non-symptomatic). After stratification, subjects provided a morning sample of blood, completed the Aging Male Survey (AMS) and the newly developed Canadian Society for the Study of the Aging Male (CSAM-Q) questionnaires. Serum aliquots were analysed at a central lab for 8 putative markers commonly associated with symptomatic testosterone deficiency associated with aging: total testosterone (T); bioavailable T (BT); dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEA-S); sex-hormone binding globulin (SHBG); luteinizing hormone (LH), prolactin (PRL); thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). RESULTS: 92 men were screened; of these 59 (mean age of 58+/-11 years) completed the study, 30 (51%) scored positively (mean 61.5 years) to the ADAM while 29 (49%) did not (mean 54.1 years). For the AMS the weight of the three domains (psychological, somato-vegetative and sexual) was significantly greater in Group A (p<0.001) than in Group B. Equally, for the CAS questionnaire, the scores for the variables energy, global performance, frequency of intercourse, mood and quality of sleep were lower in Group A than in their asymptomatic counterparts (p<0.001). The domain of memory assessment within the CSSAM-Q was not discriminatory. ADAM and AMS are self-administered and completed within 10 minutes. CSSAM-Q is more time consuming, requires an investigator to administer, and memory domain is biased in favour of specific professional training. No difference was found between the two groups in 6 of 8 biochemical tests. However, significant lower values (p<0.001) were found for DHEA-S and IGF-1 in the symptomatic group as compared with the non-symptomatic cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that newer, more complex tools perform similarly to the simpler ADAM questionnaire. The lack of correlation between the clinical picture and the most commonly used biochemical confirmatory tests, again, clearly points to the paramount importance of the clinical evaluation. An emphasis and reliance on serum T alone hinders the clinician's ability to manage testosterone deficiency syndromes (TDS).

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)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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