MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029728974 · doi:10.3892/etm.2020.8794

Conservative in utero treatment of fetal dyshormonogenetic goiter with levothyroxine, a systematic literature review

2020· article· en· W3029728974 on OpenAlexaff
Dragoş Nemescu, Dana Stoian, Dan Năvolan, Angela Vinturache

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental and Therapeutic Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLevothyroxineMedicineIn uteroGoiterFetusThyroidPediatricsObstetricsPrenatal diagnosisPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fetal goitrous hypothyroidism is a rare condition associated with important obstetrical, neonatal complications, and neurodevelopmental impairments. Prenatal treatment remains controversial, and the risk to benefit ratio must be accurately assessed and considered for individualized management. The objective of this review was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of the conservative in utero treatment of fetal goitrous hypothyroidism. In total, 25 reports that met our inclusion criteria were selected and the management of 38 cases was analyzed. Prenatal diagnosis consisted mainly of ultrasonographic findings. Fetal thyroid status was assessed by cordocentesis. Prenatal treatment varied widely in terms of levothyroxine (LT4) route of administration, dosage, number of injections, and frequency. Although different regimens and routes of administration were proposed, they seem to have similar results regarding fetal goiter reduction and thyroid status at birth. At birth, most babies had hypothyroidism, but the long‑term follow‑up indicated a normal psycho‑neuromotor development. Our data confirm the feasibility of conservative treatment with LT4 for fetal goitrous hypothyroidism. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal management of this disorder.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental and Therapeutic MedicineSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207