Short-Term Safety and Efficacy of Human GH Replacement Therapy in 595 Adults with GH Deficiency: A Comparison of Two Dosage Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of GH replacement therapy in GH-deficient adults is to optimize response with minimum incidence of adverse reactions, but optimal therapy regimens are still to be established. This two-arm parallel study examined effects of two GH dose algorithms in adults with GH deficiency of adult or childhood onset. Patients on low dose (LD; n = 302) received GH at 3 microg/kg per day for 3 months increasing to 6 microg/kg per day for 3 months, and those on conventional dose (CD; n = 293) started on 6 microg/kg per day for 3 months increasing to 12 microg/kg per day for 3 months. The proportion of patients completing therapy was greater for the LD group than the CD group for the first 3 months (93.0% vs. 88.1%; P = 0.037) and overall for the 6 months (90.7% vs. 84.0%; P = 0.013). Both dose groups showed significant increases in lean body mass and decreases in fat mass for all time points. Percent increase in lean body mass was less with LD than CD over the first 3 months (2.43 +/- 4.33 vs. 3.58 +/- 4.69%; P = 0.006) but not overall for the 6-month period (4.38% +/- 5.34% vs. 5.21% +/- 5.99%; P = 0.141). Percent decrease in fat mass was less with LD than CD for the first 3 months (-2.81% +/- 7.81% vs. -5.53% +/- 8.64%; P < 0.001) and overall for the 6-month period (-6.35% +/- 9.42% vs. -9.45% +/- 12.07%; P = 0.006). IGF-I SD score increased less with LD than CD for 0 to 3 and 0 to 6 months, although for IGF-binding protein-3 SD score, there was no significant difference between doses at any time. Arthralgia was the only adverse event that occurred significantly less frequently with LD than with CD. Calculated changes based on gender and onset indicated greater changes in males than females for body composition, but there was little difference in GH-related adverse events between males and females. The lower starting dose with dose titration appeared more favorable, but differences in response between genders and onset of GH deficiency need to be taken into account when setting an individual dose regimen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".