MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021924627 · doi:10.1089/thy.2019.0535

Clinical Parameters Are More Likely to Be Associated with Thyroid Hormone Levels than with Thyrotropin Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3021924627 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThyroid · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHormoneTriiodothyronineInternal medicineMeta-analysisThyroidEndocrinologyThyroid functionEndocrine systemPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Though the functional states of other endocrine systems are not defined on the basis of levels of controlling hormones, the assessment of thyroid function is based on levels of the controlling hormone thyrotropin (TSH). We, therefore, addressed the question as to whether levels of thyroid hormones [free thyroxine (fT4), total triiodothyronine (TT3)/free triiodothyronine (fT3)], or TSH levels, within and beyond the reference ranges, provide the better guide to the range of clinical parameters associated with thyroid status. Methods: A PubMed/MEDLINE search of studies up to October 2019, examining associations of levels of thyroid hormones and TSH, taken simultaneously in the same individuals, with clinical parameters was performed. We analyzed atrial fibrillation, other cardiac parameters, osteoporosis and fracture, cancer, dementia, frailty, mortality, features of the metabolic syndrome, and pregnancy outcomes. Studies were assessed for quality by using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa score. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. A meta-analysis of the associations was performed to determine the relative likelihood of fT4, TT3/fT3, and TSH levels that are associated with the clinical parameters. Results: We identified 58 suitable articles and a total of 1880 associations. In general, clinical parameters were associated with thyroid hormone levels significantly more often than with TSH levels—the converse was not true for any of the clinical parameters. In the 1880 considered associations, fT4 levels were significantly associated with clinical parameters in 50% of analyses. The respective frequencies for TT3/fT3 and TSH levels were 53% and 23% ( p < 0.0001 for both fT4 and TT3/fT3 vs. TSH). The fT4 and TT3/fT3 levels were comparably associated with clinical parameters ( p = 0.71). More sophisticated statistical analyses, however, indicated that the associations with TT3/fT3 were not as robust as the associations with fT4. Conclusions: Thyroid hormones levels, and in particular fT4 levels, seem to have stronger associations with clinical parameters than do TSH levels. Associations of clinical parameters with TSH levels can be explained by the strong negative population correlation between thyroid hormones and TSH. Clinical and research components of thyroidology currently based on the measurement of the thyroid state by reference to TSH levels warrant reconsideration.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.199 · 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