Distinguishing Constitutional Delay of Growth and Puberty from Isolated Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism: Critical Appraisal of Available Diagnostic Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Determining the etiology of delayed puberty during initial evaluation can be challenging. Specifically, clinicians often cannot distinguish constitutional delay of growth and puberty (CDGP) from isolated hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (IHH), with definitive diagnosis of IHH awaiting lack of spontaneous puberty by age 18 yr. However, the ability to make a timely, correct diagnosis has important clinical implications. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe and evaluate the literature regarding the ability of diagnostic tests to distinguish CDGP from IHH. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A PubMed search was performed using key words "puberty, delayed" and "hypogonadotropic hypogonadism," and citations within retrieved articles were reviewed to identify studies that assessed the utility of basal and stimulation tests in the diagnosis of delayed puberty. Emphasis was given to a test's ability to distinguish prepubertal adolescents with CDGP from those with IHH. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Basal gonadotropin and GnRH stimulation tests have limited diagnostic specificity, with overlap in gonadotropin levels between adolescents with CDGP and IHH. Stimulation tests using more potent GnRH agonists and/or human chorionic gonadotropin may have better discriminatory value, but small study size, lack of replication of diagnostic thresholds, and prolonged protocols limit clinical application. A single inhibin B level in two recent studies demonstrated good differentiation between groups. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing IHH from CDGP is an important clinical issue. Basal inhibin B may offer a simple, discriminatory test if results from recent studies are replicated. However, current literature does not allow for recommendation of any diagnostic test for routine clinical use, making this an important area for future investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".