Personalized Approach to Growth Hormone Treatment: Clinical Use of Growth Prediction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of growth hormone (GH) treatment in a short child is to attain a fast catch-up growth toward the target height (TH) standard deviation score (SDS), followed by a maintenance phase, a proper pubertal height gain, and an adult height close to TH. The short-term response variable of GH treatment, first-year height velocity (HV) (cm/year or change in height SDS), can either be compared with GH response charts for diagnosis, age and gender, or with predicted HV based on prediction models. Three types of prediction models have been described: the Kabi International Growth Hormone Study models, the Gothenburg models and the Cologne model. With these models, 50-80% of the variance could be explained. When used prospectively, individualized dosing reduces the variation in growth response in comparison with a fixed dose per body weight. Insulin-like growth factor-I-based dose titration also led to a decrease in the variation. It is uncertain whether adding biochemical, genetic or proteomic markers may improve the accuracy of the prediction. Prediction models may lead to a more evidence-based approach to determine the GH dose regimen and may reduce the drug costs for GH treatment. There is a need for user-friendly software programs to make prediction models easily available in the clinic.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".