Is the Correlation between Salivary Cortisol and Serum Cortisol Reliable Enough to Enable Use of Salivary Cortisol Levels in Preterm Infants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Newborn premature infants are susceptible to development of relative adrenal insufficiency following transition from fetal to extrauterine life. However, the best diagnostic test for adrenal insufficiency in neonates has yet to be developed. Objectives and Methods The aim of this study was (1) to assess the feasibility of obtaining sufficient saliva sample to allow measurement of cortisol by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry and (2) to assess the correlation, if any, between salivary and serum cortisol in preterm infants of ≤32 weeks' gestational age at birth. Results Samples for 230 paired serum and saliva cortisol levels from 90 preterm infants were analyzed. 87.5% of samples collected had sufficient salivary volumes for measurement. Despite being statistically significant (p < 0.0001), the correlation (Spearman r = 0.674) between serum and salivary cortisol was not strong. Conclusion Salivary free cortisol measurement is feasible but cannot be used to accurately reflect serum total cortisol. Further studies comparing salivary free cortisol to serum free cortisol and establishing normative data are needed before salivary cortisol can be used for diagnostic purposes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".