GH Treatment to Final Height Produces Similar Height Gains in Patients With SHOX Deficiency and Turner Syndrome: Results of a Multicenter Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Growth impairment in short stature homeobox-containing gene (SHOX) deficiency and Turner syndrome share a similar etiology. Because of the established effect of GH treatment on height in patients with Turner syndrome, we hypothesized that GH therapy would also stimulate growth in patients with SHOX deficiency. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to evaluate long-term efficacy of GH treatment in short patients with SHOX deficiency and to compare the effect on final (adult) height (FH) in patients with SHOX deficiency and Turner syndrome. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective, multinational, open-label, randomized 3-arm study consisting of a 2-year control period and a subsequent extension period to FH. The treatment groups were 1) SHOX-D-C/GH (untreated during the control period, GH-treated during the extension), 2) SHOX-D-GH/GH, and 3) Turner-GH/GH (GH-treated during both study periods). PATIENTS: Short-statured prepubertal patients with genetically confirmed SHOX deficiency (n = 49) or Turner syndrome (n = 24) who participated in the extension. INTERVENTION: Depending on the study arm, patients received a daily sc injection of 0.05 mg/kg recombinant human GH from start of the study or start of the extension until attainment of FH or study closure. RESULTS: Height SD score gain from start of GH treatment to FH was similar between the combined SHOX-deficient groups (n = 28, 1.34 ± 0.18 [least-squares mean ± SE]) and the Turner group (n = 19, 1.32 ± 0.22). In this FH population, 57% of the patients with SHOX deficiency and 32% of the patients with Turner syndrome achieved a FH greater than -2 SD score. CONCLUSIONS: GH treatment in short children with SHOX deficiency showed similar long-term efficacy as seen in girls with Turner syndrome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".