Functional testosterone: Biochemical assessment of hypogonadism in men – Report from a multidisciplinary workshop hosted by the Ontario Society of Clinical Chemists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In 2004, the Ontario Society of Clinical Chemists (OSCC) held an invitational multidisciplinary workshop to establish the most reliable, cost-effective approach to the biochemical assessment of hypogonadism in men. METHODS: Specialists across Canada in clinical biochemistry, endocrinology, family medicine and urology were invited to participate in this workshop which included individual presentations and a consensus component addressing two challenge statements: 1) 'Determinations for total testosterone (TT) are equivalent to those for bioavailable testosterone (BAT) or calculated BAT (cBAT) or free testosterone (FT) (by analogue radioimmunoassay or equilibrium dialysis) or calculated FT (cFT)'; 2) 'There is no good evidence that borderline low testosterone concentrations in men should be treated'. The main outcomes were to identify what agreement exists in Canada, what issues were still controversial, and what research remains to be addressed. RESULTS: Six recommendations based on expert opinion addressed these main themes: investigate with morning total testosterone (TT) followed by repetition and reflexive testing of sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) if testosterone is 8-15 nmol/L with automatic calculation of cBAT; discontinue the use of analogue free testosterone assays; and definitive methods and standards must be available to ensure standardized results. CONCLUSIONS: Total testosterone is a reliable marker for the initial investigation of men presenting with symptoms of hypogonadism; cBAT is a reasonable follow-up test in patients with equivocal biochemical or consistent symptomatic findings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".