The changing epidemiology of congenital hypothyroidism: fact or artifact?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screening increases prevalence estimates for most diseases and congenital hypothyroidism (CH) is no exception, affecting one in 6700 children by clinical ascertainment and one in 3500 in the first surveys of systematic biochemical screening of newborns. Importantly, screening has resulted in the disappearance of intellectual disability due to CH. A further doubling in prevalence estimates has recently been reported, mostly accounted for by changes in screening algorithms; accordingly, the prevalence of overt CH has remained stable. Population-based registries that distinguish confirmed diagnoses from positive screening results have proved invaluable. These registries should include: etiology of CH based on imaging, ideally technetium scintigraphy; ethnicity; socio-educational data; input from the screening laboratories and pediatric endocrinologists. Efforts should now be directed at increasing the proportion of the world's newborns screened for overt CH (currently 30%) and at determining if neonates with mild hyperthyrotropinemia also benefit from early treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".