American Thyroid Association Guidelines for Detection of Thyroid Dysfunction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the optimal approach to identify patients with thyroid dysfunction. PARTICIPANTS: The 8-member Standards of Care Committee of the American Thyroid Association prepared a draft, which was reviewed by the association's 780 members, 50 of whom responded with suggested revisions. EVIDENCE: Relevant published studies were identified through MEDLINE and the association membership's personal resources. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Consensus was reached at group meetings. The first draft was prepared by a single author (P.W.L.) after group discussion. Suggested revisions were incorporated after consideration by the committee. CONCLUSIONS: The American Thyroid Association recommends that adults be screened for thyroid dysfunction by measurement of the serum thyrotropin concentration, beginning at age 35 years and every 5 years thereafter. The indication for screening is particularly compelling in women, but it can also be justified in men as a relatively cost-effective measure in the context of the periodic health examination. Individuals with symptoms and signs potentially attributable to thyroid dysfunction and those with risk factors for its development may require more frequent serum thyrotropin testing.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it