Comparison of Hematocrit Change in Testosterone-deficient Men Treated With Intranasal Testosterone Gel vs Intramuscular Testosterone Cypionate: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our primary aim was to compare changes in hematocrit in testosterone-deficient men treated with intranasal testosterone gel vs intramuscular testosterone cypionate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 2-arm, open-label, randomized trial recruited men with testosterone deficiency at the University of Miami between August 2020 and October 2022. Men with 2 total testosterone levels <350 ng/dL and hypogonadal symptoms, aged 18-75 years were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal testosterone gel 11 mg 3 times daily or intramuscular testosterone cypionate 200 mg every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was change in hematocrit after 4 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in serum testosterone, estradiol, prostate-specific antigen, 17-hydroxyprogesterone, and the 6-item International Index of Erectile Function. RESULTS: 015); men treated with intranasal gel experienced no such changes. Prostate-specific antigen levels were stable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal testosterone gel does not appear to significantly affect hematocrit levels. Men who wish to avoid polycythemia or changes in estradiol or 17-hydroxyprogesterone levels may benefit from short-acting testosterone therapy formulations such as intranasal gel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".