MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944591435 · doi:10.1210/js.2019-sat-277

SAT-277 Re-Evaluation of the 17-Hydroxyprogesterone (17-OHP) Screening Threshold for Diagnosing Nonclassic Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (NCCAH) in the Era of Liquid Chromatography Tandem-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)

2019· article· en· W2944591435 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Chesover, Heather Millar, Khosrow Adeli, Mark R. Palmert, Jill Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunoassay21-HydroxylaseCongenital adrenal hyperplasiaInternal medicineEndocrinologyLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryMedicineAdrenarcheACTH stimulation testAdrenocorticotropic hormoneChemistryChromatographyMass spectrometryImmunologyHormoneAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: NCCAH is characterized by reduced 21-hydroxylase activity leading to elevations in adrenal androgens. It may be associated with an inadequate cortisol response to ACTH stimulation. Clinical diagnosis is problematic as signs and symptoms overlap with more common conditions such as premature adrenarche and polycystic ovarian syndrome. A screening 17-OHP >6 nmol/L (200 ng/dL) based on immunoassay prompts NCCAH diagnostic testing with an ACTH stimulation test. Peak 17-OHP <30 nmol/L (1000 ng/dL) post-ACTH excludes NCCAH. In 2011, we replaced immunoassay with LC-MS/MS for 17-OHP quantification which has greater specificity. A method comparison revealed a negative bias between LC-MS/MS and immunoassay measurements prompting us to evaluate the accuracy of the 17-OHP thresholds (1). Aims: To evaluate the 17-OHP thresholds that predict genetically-confirmed NCCAH. A secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of adrenal insufficiency (AI) in this population. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of clinical and genetic data for all patients <18 years who underwent ACTH stimulation tests with measurement of cortisol and 17-OHP from 2011 to 2018. NCCAH was genetically confirmed; other adrenal pathologies were excluded. AI was defined as peak cortisol < 500 nmol/L (18 µg/dL), measured by immunoassay. Using correlation data between immunoassay and LC-MS/MS, a new 17OHP threshold of 3.3 nmol/L (110 ng/dL) was calculated for the LC-MS/MS method and was considered equivalent to 6 nmol/L by immunoassay; similarly, 20 nmol/L (666 ng/dL) was considered equivalent to 30 nmol/L (1). Results: 188 patients met inclusion criteria. 23 (12%) had NCCAH of which 21/23 had genetic confirmation; the remaining 2 had peak 17-OHP >30 nmol/L by LC-MS/MS. Baseline 17-OHP > 6 nmol/L most accurately diagnosed NCCAH (sensitivity and specificity 96%) with no improvement using 17-OHP >3.3 nmol/L. 20/21 genetically confirmed NCCAH had peak 17-OHP >30 nmol/L. Of three with 17-OHP peak 20-30 nmol/L, one was a CAH carrier, one had other adrenal pathology, and another with unknown diagnosis. 87% with NCCAH had biochemical AI. Baseline 17-OHP >6 nmol/L predicted all with AI. Conclusion: Despite increased specificity of LC-MS/MS for steroid measurements, a baseline 17-OHP >6 nmol/L remained the most accurate predictor of NCCAH. This threshold also predicts all with AI, notably prevalent in our cohort. Analysis is limited by a small cohort, low NCCAH incidence and lack of genetic data in those presumed without NCCAH. However, this re-evaluation of screening and diagnostic thresholds is important in the era of evolving assays and these results support current practice guidelines. Reference: 1. Kyriakopoulou L. et al. Clin Biochem. 2013;46:642-651

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207