Use of thyroid-stimulating hormone tests for identifying primary hypothyroidism in family medicine patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) tests for identifying primary hypothyroidism in 2 academic family medicine settings. DESIGN: Descriptive study involving a retrospective electronic chart review of family medicine patients who underwent TSH testing. SETTING: Two academic family practice sites: one site is within a tertiary hospital in Toronto, Ont, and the other is within a community hospital in Newmarket, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 205 adult family medicine patients who had 1 or more TSH tests for identifying potential primary hypothyroidism between July 1, 2009, and September 15, 2013. Exclusion criteria included a previous diagnosis of any thyroid condition or abnormality, as well as pregnancy or recent pregnancy within the year preceding the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of normal TSH test results and the proportion of TSH tests that did not conform to test-ordering guidelines. RESULTS: = .0623) met or approached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In this study, the proportion of normal TSH test results in the context of primary hypothyroidism case finding and screening was high, and the overall proportion of TSH tests that did not conform to test-ordering guidelines was relatively high as well. These results highlight a need for more consistent TSH test-ordering guidelines for primary hypothyroidism and perhaps some educational interventions to help curtail the overuse of TSH tests in the family medicine setting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".