Extraocular Muscle Enlargement in Acromegaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine whether acromegaly is associated with increased extraocular muscle (EOM) size at time of presentation. METHODS: Patients with a new diagnosis of acromegaly in a single tertiary care clinic with a CT scan that adequately delineated the EOMs were included. Control subjects were age- and sex-matched patients with a new diagnosis of nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma. Retrospective chart review was performed to extract baseline clinical and laboratory parameters including growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor 1, thyroid stimulating hormone, free T3, and free T4. A single neuroradiologist analyzed all CT scans and measured the maximum diameter and cross-sectional area of the superior rectus, inferior rectus, medial rectus, and lateral rectus in both eyes of all patients. RESULTS: We evaluated 17 patients with acromegaly and 18 control subjects. Mean maximum diameter of the superior, inferior, medial, and lateral recti were 4.80 mm (SD = 0.81), 4.67 mm (SD = 0.54), 4.86 mm (SD = 0.77), and 4.53 mm (SD = 0.70) respectively, in the acromegaly group. In the control group, they were 3.62 mm (SD = 0.58),3.71 mm (SD = 0.46), 3.66 mm (SD = 0.32), and 3.21 mm (SD = 0.44), respectively. The maximum diameter and cross-sectional area of all 4 EOMs measured in the acromegaly group were significantly larger ( P < 0.001) compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acromegaly present with significantly enlarged EOMs compared with control subjects with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".