Long-Term Social Follow-up of Growth Hormone Deficient Adults Treated with Growth Hormone During Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of human growth hormone (GH) in promoting linear growth in children with GH deficiency (GHD) has been widely confirmed (Frasier, 1983; Guyda, Friesen, Bailey, Leboeuf, & Beck, 1975). Although in the early years of hGH therapy the long-term prognosis for height was unknown, the observed growth acceleration led most investigators, patients, and their families to anticipate normal final adult height (Grew, Stabler, Williams, & Underwood, 1983). Inherent in this prediction was the assumption that improved growth would facilitate normal psychosocial development. Reports of final adult heights of individuals treated with GH during childhood and adolescence are now appearing in the literature (Burns, Tanner, Preece, & Cameron, 1981; Joss, Tuppinger, Schwartz, & Poter, 1983), but the psychosocial status of these patients in adult life has not been studied. Four years ago, in delivering the Raben Memorial Lecture entitled “A Tale of Stature” at the 62nd annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, Henry G. Friesen (1980) noted, “It is unquestionable that growth velocity can be normalized in the majority of children, but it is not altogether clear what the ultimate psychological and social adaptation of these individuals is.” To pursue this question, we interviewed 116 growth hormone deficient (GHD) adults across Canada (aged 18-40 years) who had been treated for at least 2 years with growth hormone during childhood. Our objective was to determine their social status using education, employment, and marital status as outcome variables. The null hypothesis of our study was that the educational, employment, and marital status of the GHD adults was not different from that of the general population. Regional population data from Statistics Canada (1980, 1983) were available for comparison. Parents and siblings over 18 were used as environmental control subjects. This presentation is a summary of the results of that study (Dean, McTaggart, Fish, & Friesen, 1984).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".