MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166152082 · doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3888

Growth Hormone Research Society Workshop Summary: Consensus Guidelines for Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Therapy in Prader-Willi Syndrome

2013· review· en· W2166152082 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCliniques Universitaires Saint-LucChildren's Hospital of PittsburghNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesErasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum RotterdamSahlgrenska AkademinMedical Research CouncilCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-JustineIstituto Auxologico ItalianoNational Institutes of HealthMassachusetts General HospitalIstituto Ortopedico Rizzoli di BolognaInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of New South WalesAarhus UniversitetshospitalJohns Hopkins Children's CenterImperial College LondonHelsingin YliopistoNovo NordiskAarhus UniversitetGöteborgs UniversitetMcMaster UniversityUniversity of SydneyJohns Hopkins UniversityFoundation for Prader-Willi ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalPfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsHuman growth hormoneRecombinant DNAGrowth hormoneHormone therapyHormoneMedicineEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Recombinant human GH (rhGH) therapy in Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) has been used by the medical community and advocated by parental support groups since its approval in the United States in 2000 and in Europe in 2001. Its use in PWS represents a unique therapeutic challenge that includes treating individuals with cognitive disability, varied therapeutic goals that are not focused exclusively on increased height, and concerns about potential life-threatening adverse events. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to formulate recommendations for the use of rhGH in children and adult patients with PWS. EVIDENCE: We performed a systematic review of the clinical evidence in the pediatric population, including randomized controlled trials, comparative observational studies, and long-term studies (>3.5 y). Adult studies included randomized controlled trials of rhGH treatment for ≥ 6 months and uncontrolled trials. Safety data were obtained from case reports, clinical trials, and pharmaceutical registries. METHODOLOGY: Forty-three international experts and stakeholders followed clinical practice guideline development recommendations outlined by the AGREE Collaboration (www.agreetrust.org). Evidence was synthesized and graded using a comprehensive multicriteria methodology (EVIDEM) (http://bit.ly.PWGHIN). CONCLUSIONS: Following a multidisciplinary evaluation, preferably by experts, rhGH treatment should be considered for patients with genetically confirmed PWS in conjunction with dietary, environmental, and lifestyle interventions. Cognitive impairment should not be a barrier to treatment, and informed consent/assent should include benefit/risk information. Exclusion criteria should include severe obesity, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea, active cancer, or psychosis. Clinical outcome priorities should vary depending upon age and the presence of physical, mental, and social disability, and treatment should be continued for as long as demonstrated benefits outweigh the risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.328
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it