Development of additional pituitary hormone deficiencies in pediatric patients originally diagnosed with idiopathic isolated GH deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the characteristics of children initially diagnosed with idiopathic isolated GH deficiency (IGHD) who later developed additional (multiple) pituitary hormone deficiencies (MPHD). DESIGN: Data were analyzed for 5805 pediatric patients with idiopathic IGHD, who were GH-naïve at baseline and GH-treated in the multinational, observational Genetics and Neuroendocrinology of Short Stature International Study. METHODS: Development of MPHD was assessed from investigator diagnoses, adverse events, and concomitant medications. Analyses were performed for all patients and for those who developed MPHD within 4.5 years or had ≥3.5 years, follow-up and continued to have IGHD (4-year cohort). RESULTS: MPHD developed in 118/5805 (2.0%) children overall, and in 96/1757 (5.5%) in the 4-year cohort. Patients who developed MPHD had more profound GHD, with decreased height SDS, IGF1 SDS and peak stimulated GH, and greater height decrement vs target, compared with children who continued to have IGHD (P<0.001 for each variable). Delivery complications, congenital anomalies, and perinatal/neonatal adverse events occurred more frequently in patients who developed MPHD. The most frequent additional deficiency was TSH (82 patients overall); four patients developed two pituitary hormone deficiencies and one developed three deficiencies. Multivariable logistic regression indicated that years of follow-up (odds ratio 1.55), baseline age (1.17), baseline height SDS (0.69), and peak stimulated GH (0.64) were associated with the development of MPHD. CONCLUSIONS: MPHD is more likely to develop in patients with more severe idiopathic IGHD. Older baseline age, lower baseline height SDS, and longer follow-up duration are associated with increased risk of development of MPHD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".