Limited Utility of Biochemical Screening for Pituitary Deficiencies and Adverse Effects in Idiopathic GH Deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: In children with isolated growth hormone (GH) deficiency (GHD), routine biochemical screening for multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies (MPHD) and adverse effects related to growth hormone (GH) treatment are frequently performed. More evidence is needed to support this practice. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the rate of development of MPHD among children initially diagnosed with isolated GHD and to assess the utility of screening tests to identify complications of GH therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of subjects treated with GH since 2005. For the first objective, only subjects diagnosed with GHD were included. Subjects were excluded if GHD was associated with an acquired disorder or condition known to be associated with pituitary abnormalities. For the second objective, other GH-treated diagnoses were included. PATIENTS: deficiency). RESULTS: In subjects with isolated GHD, MPHD was diagnosed in seven (4.2%) after a mean of 35.4 months (range, 9.4 to 68.0). Sex, age at diagnosis, duration of GH, and peak stimulated GH levels were not associated with developing MPHD. Among subjects with an MRI abnormality, 13.9% developed MPHD (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 33.7). In the entire cohort, three subjects (0.9%) developed dysglycemia, and no subject had persistently abnormal liver or renal function tests. CONCLUSIONS: There is a limited role for routine biochemical screening for MPHD in children with idiopathic isolated GHD or for adverse effects in otherwise healthy children. Routine biochemical screening for MPHD should be limited to those with an abnormal MRI.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".