Morphometric changes correlate with poor psychological outcomes in patients with acromegaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Acromegaly is frequently associated with altered facial appearance at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, acromegaly is also associated with adverse psychological outcomes. We conducted a single-centre, cross-sectional study comparing patients with growth hormone vs non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFA) to assess the association between morphometric changes and psychological outcomes and illness perception of patients with acromegaly. METHODS: A seven-step scale was developed to grade morphometric changes based on facial photographs. In addition, all patients were asked to draw an image of their own body and an image of what they considered to be an average healthy body and complete seven psychological questionnaires. We recruited 55 consecutive patients in each of the two groups who had undergone surgery with or without radiation therapy (RT). RESULTS: Our data showed that the clinician-rated morphometric scale was highly reliable in assessing facial changes, with 93/99 (Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.95 (0.93-0.97)) graded as similar by independent raters. The mean (s.d.) grading for Acro and NFA patients on the clinician-rated morphometric scale were 3.5 (1.3) and 0.41 (0.35) respectively (P<0.0001). A higher clinician-rated morphometric score was also predictive of a poorer score on the drawing test. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a correlation between physical changes associated with acromegaly and poor psychological outcomes, whereas no such correlation existed with modes of therapy, disease control status, RT, malignancy, initial or recent GH/IGF1 or secondary hormonal deficiency. Our data support the utility of the morphometric scale as a clinical tool for grading facial changes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".