Testosterone therapy: Prescribing and monitoring patterns of practice in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend that testosterone therapy (TTh) be restricted to men with a biochemical diagnosis of hypogonadism, and that therapeutic responses be titrated within the normal range. METHODS: Using four provincial longitudinal databases in British Columbia, we identified men prescribed TTh from 1997-2013. We characterized the prescribing and monitoring practices of TTh in the context of serum testosterone levels drawn prior to and following initiation of TTh in a population-based setting. RESULTS: In our analysis of 37 741 men who received at least one TTh prescription, 48% received injectable testosterone and the vast majority were treated by general practitioners. The number of prescriptions for men increased annually, particularly after 2008; 40% discontinued their treatment after their first or second prescription, while 27% received more than 10 repeats. The absolute percentage of pre- and post-serum testosterone levels ordered increased by 16% and 31% during the study period, respectively. However, after initiating TTh, only 36% of all the men had a followup serum testosterone level drawn. Of those with low serum testosterone levels prior to TTh, 49% remained biochemically hypogonadal following TTh, suggesting non-compliance or inadequate dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Many men prescribed TTh did not continue beyond a short trial. While the practice of checking pre-and post-TTh testosterone levels improved over the study period, it is concerning that only one-third had a followup serum testosterone level and half remained biochemically low. Further education is required around TTh prescribing, dose titration, and monitoring to ensure both effective and safe prescribing 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".