Neonatal Screening for Congenital Hypothyroidism in The Netherlands: Cognitive and Motor Outcome at 10 Years of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patients with thyroidal congenital hypothyroidism (CH-T) born in The Netherlands in 1981-1982 showed persistent intellectual and motor deficits during childhood and adulthood, despite initiation of T(4) supplementation at a median age of 28 d after birth. OBJECTIVE: The present study examined whether advancement of treatment initiation to 20 d had resulted in improved cognitive and motor outcome. DESIGN/SETTING/PATIENTS: In 82 Dutch CH-T patients, born in 1992 to 1993 and treated at a median age of 20 d (mean, 22 d; range, 2-73 d), cognitive and motor outcome was assessed (mean age, 10.5 yr; range, 9.6-11.4 yr). Severity of CH-T was classified according to pretreatment free T(4) concentration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cognitive and motor outcome of the 1992-1993 cohort in comparison to the 1981 to 1982 cohort was the main outcome measure. RESULTS: Patients with severe CH-T had lower full-scale (93.7), verbal (94.9), and performance (93.9) IQ scores than the normative population (P < 0.05), whereas IQ scores of patients with moderate and mild CH-T were comparable to those of the normative population. In all three severity subgroups, significant motor problems were observed, most pronounced in the severe CH-T group. No correlations were found between starting day of treatment and IQ or motor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Essentially, findings from the 1992-1993 cohort were similar to those of the 1981-1982 cohort. Apparently, advancing initiation of T(4) supplementation from 28 to 20 d after birth did not result in improved cognitive or motor outcome in CH-T patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".