MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116664513 · doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1783

Consensus Statement on the Use of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogs in Children

2009· review· en· W2116664513 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐Claude Carel, Erica A. Eugster, Alan D. Rogol, Lucia Ghizzoni, Mark R. Palmert

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormones
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersTurun YliopistoPenn State College of MedicinePennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of South FloridaGenentechNational Institutes of HealthNIH Clinical CenterIpsenEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentKarolinska InstitutetNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversiteit LeidenInsmedUniversity of PennsylvaniaRigshospitaletChildren's National HospitalGeorge Washington UniversityPritzker School of MedicineUniversità degli Studi di VeronaMcMaster UniversitySchool of Medicine, Indiana University
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialGonadotropin-releasing hormoneHormoneCentral precocious pubertyPrecocious pubertyPediatricsInternal medicineFamily medicineLuteinizing hormonePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs revolutionized the treatment of central precocious puberty. However, questions remain regarding their optimal use in central precocious puberty and other conditions. The Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and the European Society for Pediatric Endocrinology convened a consensus conference to review the clinical use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in children and adolescents. PARTICIPANTS: When selecting the 30 participants, consideration was given to equal representation from North America (United States and Canada) and Europe, an equal male/female ratio, and a balanced spectrum of professional seniority and expertise. EVIDENCE: Preference was given to articles written in English with long-term outcome data. The US Public Health grading system was used to grade evidence and rate the strength of conclusions. When evidence was insufficient, conclusions were based on expert opinion. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Participants were put into working groups with assigned topics and specific questions. Written materials were prepared and distributed before the conference, revised on the basis of input during the meeting, and presented to the full assembly for final review. If consensus could not be reached, conclusions were based on majority vote. All participants approved the final statement. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in increasing adult height is undisputed only in early-onset (girls <6 years old) central precocious puberty. Other key areas, such as the psychosocial effects of central precocious puberty and their alteration by gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, need additional study. Few controlled prospective studies have been performed with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in children, and many conclusions rely in part on collective expert opinion. The conference did not endorse commonly voiced concerns regarding the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, such as promotion of weight gain or long-term diminution of bone mineral density. Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs for conditions other than central precocious puberty requires additional investigation and cannot be suggested routinely.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.138
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1380.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0110.010
Research integrity0.0220.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations803
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormonesFrench-language works237,207