A Randomized Comparison of Radioiodine Doses in Graves’ Hyperthyroidism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal method for determining iodine-131 treatment doses for Graves' hyperthyroidism is unknown, and techniques have varied from a fixed dose to more elaborate calculations based upon gland size, iodine uptake, and iodine turnover. Patients with Graves' hyperthyroidism (n = 88) who had not been previously treated with radioactive iodine were randomized to one of four dose calculation methods: low-fixed, 235 MBq; high-fixed, 350 MBq; low-adjusted, 2.96 MBq (80 micro Ci)/g thyroid adjusted for 24 h radioiodine uptake; and high-adjusted, 4.44 MBq (120 micro Ci)/g thyroid adjusted for 24 h radioiodine uptake. Subjects were followed for mean of 63 months (range, 10-94 months) for the following clinical outcomes: euthyroid without medication, hyperthyroid requiring further radioiodine, and hypothyroid requiring life-long L-T(4). Mean treatment doses were similar in the different outcome groups. We could not demonstrate any advantage to using an adjusted dose method. Survival analysis did not demonstrate any difference in the time to outcome between the fixed and adjusted dose methods. The use of a fixed dose method simplifies the approach to treatment with potential cost savings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it