The shortened combined clonidine and arginine test for growth hormone deficiency is practical and specific: a diagnostic accuracy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growth hormone (GH) stimulation protocols for clonidine and arginine tests are non-standardized and can be lengthy. We examined the specificity of both tests using a shorter duration of timed samples: 90 min for clonidine and 60 min for arginine. METHODS: We retrospectively studied all children who had GH stimulation with clonidine and arginine to test for GH deficiency (GHD). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of both reference and new shortened test (index). RESULTS: We reviewed 243 charts (11.4±4.1 years old; 74.5% males). The combined reference test was performed on 159 children, 29 (18.3%) tested positive for GHD on the combined index test, Kappa 0.98, false positive rate 1 (0.8%), specificity 0.99, 95th CI (0.96-1), and p=1.0. The specificity of both the clonidine and arginine single index tests was 0.98%. CONCLUSIONS: The shortened clonidine and arginine stimulation index tests have good specificity. This is a viable option for testing children for GHD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".