Comparing adolescent self staging of pubertal development with hormone biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physical examinations to characterize pubertal maturation may be unacceptable for children enrolled in research studies. Studies confirm the utility of pubertal self staging for research, but there has been limited comparison of self examination with hormone biomarkers. Our objective was to assess concordance of pubertal self staging with hormone biomarkers of puberty. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in the Health Outcomes and Measures of the Environment Study, a longitudinal pregnancy and birth cohort study. At age 12 years, 139 females and 112 males completed pubertal self staging including breast and pubic hair development in females and pubic hair development in males. No clinical physical examination was performed. Hormone concentrations were measured in 102 females and 96 males including serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone in all; estradiol in females; and testosterone in males. RESULTS: Estradiol was significantly associated with female breast stage, even when adjusted for BMI, with geometric least squares means (95%CI) of 13.2 (8.7, 20.2), 38.3 (29.9, 49.1), 59.4 (39.8, 88.6), and 81.2 (45.6, 144) pg/mL for breast stage 1-2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Testosterone was significantly associated with male pubic hair stage, with adjusted geometric least squares means (95%CI) of 37.6 (19.9, 71.1), 43.4 (27.7, 68.3), 126 (78.4, 203), 275 (146, 521), and 559 (237, 1319) ng/dL for pubic hair stage 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Self assessed pubertal development was positively associated with hormonal biomarkers of puberty.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".