Management of Thyroid Dysfunction during Pregnancy and Postpartum: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to update the guidelines for the management of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy and postpartum published previously in 2007. A summary of changes between the 2007 and 2012 version is identified in the Supplemental Data (published on The Endocrine Society's Journals Online web site at http://jcem.endojournals.org). EVIDENCE: This evidence-based guideline was developed according to the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, grading items level A, B, C, D, or I, on the basis of the strength of evidence and magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms) as well as the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The guideline was developed through a series of e-mails, conference calls, and one face-to-face meeting. An initial draft was prepared by the Task Force, with the help of a medical writer, and reviewed and commented on by members of The Endocrine Society, Asia and Oceania Thyroid Association, and the Latin American Thyroid Society. A second draft was reviewed and approved by The Endocrine Society Council. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated substantive changes. CONCLUSIONS: Practice guidelines are presented for diagnosis and treatment of patients with thyroid-related medical issues just before and during pregnancy and in the postpartum interval. These include evidence-based approaches to assessing the cause of the condition, treating it, and managing hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, gestational hyperthyroidism, thyroid autoimmunity, thyroid tumors, iodine nutrition, postpartum thyroiditis, and screening for thyroid disease. Indications and side effects of therapeutic agents used in treatment are also presented.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
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".