MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308136503 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvac150.1036

ODP327 Joint Pain Score is Higher in Acromegaly Patients Despite Pain Relief Therapy and Joint Surgeries.

2022· article· en· W4308136503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Syed A. Ahmad, David Clarke, Chik Constance, Michel Ladouceur, VanUum Stan, Lisa Tramble, Kevin Chen, Syed Ali Imran, Yuqi Wang, Michaela Title, Keillor Steeves, Aisha Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJoint painAcromegalyMcNemar's testVisual analogue scalePhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicineGrowth hormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective Arthropathy is common in acromegaly (ACRO) and profoundly impacts patients’ quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare joint pain score, usage of pain relief therapy and history of joint surgery between patients with history of ACRO and patients with non-functioning pituitary adenoma (NFA) who had previously undergone surgery. Methods Sex- and age-matched participants (n=34 for both groups) were recruited from the Halifax Neuropituitary Program to complete an online survey. All ACRO patients were in remission with or without medical therapy. An anchored visual analog scale (0-100 mm) was employed to assess joint pain, and additional questions assessed usage of pain relief therapy and history of joint surgeries. Demographic and joint pain data were compared using paired t-tests, whereas usage of pain relief therapy and history of joint surgeries were compared using exact McNemar's tests. Results Height and weight were not significantly different between the ACRO and NFA groups; (height: 171.2±11.3 cm vs. 171.9±9.6 cm, p=0.796; weight: 88.9±20.6 kg vs. 94.2±27.8 kg, p=0.350), respectively. At the time of original presentation, ACRO patients were significantly younger than NFA patients (44.4±13. 0 yrs vs55.9±10.5 yrs, p <0. 001). Joint pain scores were significantly higher for ACRO than for NFA for shoulder (23.6±30.1 mm vs. 8.3±17.2 mm, p=0. 013), back (38.5±34.5 mm vs. 20. 0±25.9 mm, p=0. 012), hip (27.4±27.7 mm vs. 9.2±17.1 mm, p=0. 004), and knee (25. 0±27. 0 mm vs. 11.9±20.1 mm, p=0. 026), while no significant differences were found for the hand/wrist, elbows, neck, and ankle/foot. Despite these differences in joint pain scores, usage of pain relief therapy was not significantly different between groups (p=0.143), and no significant differences in joint surgery history were found for any joint (hand/wrist, elbow, shoulder, neck, back, hip, knee, ankle/foot: Range p: 0.25-1). Similarly, no significant differences were revealed between groups for number of patients with surgery on 1 joint (p=0.581), 2 joints (p=1), >3joints (p=1) or no history of joint surgery (p=0.815). Conclusion Patients with ACRO had higher pain scores for shoulder, hips, knees and back despite no differences in usage of pain relief therapy or history of joint surgeries when compared with NFA. This raises the question if ACRO patients are potentially being undertreated for joint symptoms. Additionally, the pattern of joint involvement is somewhat distinct in ACRO such that larger and proximal joints are more typically involved. Presentation: No date and time listed

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207