An Approach to the Evaluation and Management of the Obese Child With Early Puberty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the declining age at onset of puberty and increasing prevalence of childhood obesity, early breast development in young obese girls has become a more frequent occurrence. Here, we examine available literature to answer a series of questions regarding how obesity impacts the evaluation and management of precocious puberty. We focus on girls as the literature is more robust, but include boys where literature permits. Suggestions include: (1) Age cutoffs for evaluation of precocious puberty should not differ substantially from those used for nonobese children. Obese girls with confirmed thelarche should be evaluated for gonadotropin-dependent, central precocious puberty (CPP) to determine if further investigation or treatment is warranted. (2) Basal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels remain a recommended first-line test. However, if stimulation testing is utilized, there is a theoretical possibility that the lower peak LH responses seen in obesity could lead to a false negative result. (3) Advanced bone age (BA) is common among obese girls even without early puberty; hence its diagnostic utility is limited. (4) Obesity does not eliminate the need for magnetic resonance imaging in girls with true CPP. Age and clinical features should determine who warrants neuroimaging. (5) BA can be used to predict adult height in obese girls with CPP to inform counseling around treatment. (6) Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) leads to increased adult height in obese girls. (7) Obesity should not limit GnRHa use as these agents do not worsen weight status in obese girls with CPP.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".