MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308134643 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvac150.1224

LBSMON194 Diagnosing Adrenal Insufficiency In Children: A Survey Among Pediatric Endocrinologists In North America

2022· article· en· W4308134643 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Silva, Trisha Patel, Carol Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal Hormones and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Gold standard (test)Adrenal insufficiencyAdrenocorticotropic hormoneStimulationPediatricsACTH stimulation testMorningPediatric endocrinologyInternal medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurately diagnosing adrenal insufficiency (AI) is of vital importance, but it can be challenging, particularly in children. While the ACTH stimulation test remains the gold standard test for diagnosing AI, its protocols and interpretation of results remain controversial. There are no international recommendations specific for the pediatric age group. Objective to understand current practices of North American pediatric endocrinologists, regarding the diagnosis of AI in children, with focus in interpreting results of ACTH stimulation tests. Methods an anonymous, electronic survey was sent to members of the Pediatric Endocrine Society in February of 2022. Email reminders were sent over the following month, and the survey was closed after 6 weeks. RedCap was used to administer the survey and store data. Results 221 survey responses were included. 52% of participants had more than 10 years of clinical experience, and 78% practiced in academic centers. All respondents ordered ACTH stimulation tests for the diagnosis of AI; 82% also used morning cortisol levels, 77% used cortisol levels during stress, and 14% used random cortisol. For the diagnosis of primary AI, 85% chose high-dose ACTH stimulation tests (HDST). For secondary AI, 62% ordered low-dose ACTH stimulation tests (LDST), 22% HDST, and the remainder used both. The most frequently used time points for the HDST were 0 and 60 minutes, and for the LDST, 0, 30 and 60 minutes. For interpretation of ACTH stimulation test results, 95% considered peak cortisol levels, 70% also took into context the clinical picture, and 48% considered the relative increase in cortisol levels from baseline. 17% of respondents used different cutoff values for LDST vs. HDST; 18% used specific cutoffs for newborns. Median (IQR) cortisol levels after ACTH stimulation tests for diagnosing AI was 18 (15.5-18) ug/L; 54% of participants used 18 ug/dL, 40% considered levels between 10 and 18 ug/L, and 7% used cutoffs between 18 and 20 ug/L. Finally, 43% of providers did not know what type of cortisol assay was used in their laboratory. Discussion In North America, pediatric endocrinology providers use ACTH stimulation protocols variably, including decisions about HDST vs. LDST, time points for cortisol measurement, and interpretation of results. Notably, there was a wide distribution of responses concerning cortisol cutoffs. Also, a significant proportion of providers who ordered and interpreted results of ACTH stimulation tests did not know which biochemical assay was employed. These exploratory results highlight the need for pediatric-specific recommendations on ACTH stimulation protocols, based on the best available evidence. Presentation: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicAdrenal Hormones and DisordersFrench-language works237,207