MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117093809 · doi:10.3171/foc.2004.16.4.4

Pharmacological approach to the treatment of acromegaly

2004· review· en· W2117093809 on OpenAlexaff
Shereen Ezzat

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcromegalyMedicineNeuroscienceIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychologyGrowth hormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The treatment of patients with persistently active acromegaly has been facilitated over the past decade by the advent of highly specific and selective pharmacological agents. Somatostatin analogs, derived from the native inhibitory hormone somatostatin, are available in extended-duration preparations and are effective in reducing serum levels of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) as well as in improving the adverse clinical effects of acromegaly. Cabergoline, an agonist with a specificity for the dopamine D-2 receptor, has been shown to suppress IGF-I levels and induce tumor shrinkage in 35 and 50% of patients, respectively. The GH receptor antagonists compete with naturally occurring GH for binding with the GH receptor. As such, pegvisomant normalizes circulating IGF-I levels in 80 to 90% of patients with acromegaly. This last line of therapy should be considered for use in patients in whom surgery and medical therapy with somatostatin and/or dopamine agonists are either ineffective or poorly tolerated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207