Critical evaluation of different available guidelines for late‐onset hypogonadism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Late-onset hypogonadism (LOH) is a syndrome characterized by clinical and biochemical evidence of low testosterone levels with advancing age. In recent years, several guidelines, position statements and other recommendations have become available. It is unclear whether similar indications are reported in these documents. OBJECTIVE: To review similarities and differences among available documents on the management of hypogonadism, with a special focus on LOH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Google and international societies websites were searched on March 2020 for documents published in the last 10 years on the management of hypogonadism and LOH. RESULTS: Nine documents were found, each developed by: (a) the American Urological Association; (b) the British Society for Sexual Medicine; (c) the Canadian Medical Association; (d) the Endocrine Society; (e) the Endocrine Society of Australia; (f) the European Academy of Andrology; (g) the European Association of Urology; (h) the International Consultation for Sexual Medicine; and (i) the International Society for the Study of Aging Male. DISCUSSION: Despite similar principles, differences were found both for the diagnostic workup and follow-up. Particularly, discrepancies were reported both for total and free testosterone levels for diagnosis and for total testosterone for monitoring. CONCLUSION: Available documents differ in terms of specific recommendations for the management of hypogonadism and LOH. Given the relevant clinical implications of adequate management of these disorders, future guidelines should report more consistent measures to be adopted in clinical practice.
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 | 0.102 | 0.399 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".