Personalized Approach to Growth Hormone Treatment: Clinical Use of Growth Prediction Models
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 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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