MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401065096 · doi:10.1007/s00247-024-05992-8

Abdominal imaging in precocious puberty in girls: can imaging determine onset of puberty?

2024· review· en· W4401065096 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Smets, Carmelo Sofia, Costanza Bruno, Damjana Ključevšek, Maria Luisa Lobo, Marcello Napolitano, H. Nursun Özcan, Samuel Stafrace, Philippe Petit, Lil‐Sofie Ording Müller

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Radiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecocious pubertyMedicineBone ageContext (archaeology)Central precocious pubertyDelayed pubertyPubic hairSecondary sex characteristicPediatricsNeuroradiologyEndocrinologyHormoneNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precocious puberty in girls is defined by the appearance of secondary sex characteristics before the age of 8 years. Precocious puberty is either peripheral or central. In most cases, the cause of central precocious puberty is unknown. Rapidly progressive forms of central precocious puberty may benefit from puberty suppression to prevent compromised final height and psychosocial problems related to the physical changes. Idiopathic central precocious puberty in girls can be a challenging diagnosis. Clinical examination, evaluation of growth charts, bone age, and hormonal tests are part of the workup. The role of pelvic ultrasound to evaluate pubertal features of the internal genitalia in this context is controversial. In this paper, we have reviewed the literature to find the scientific bases for several proposed ultrasound parameters and cutoff values for the determination of onset of puberty in girls with suspected central precocious puberty. There are no reliable cutoffs for the measurements of uterus and ovaries for the diagnosis of central precocious puberty and there is overlap in the appearance of the organs in both prepubertal and pubertal girls. The interpretation of the findings on pelvic ultrasound must be done with caution and always in close communication with the referring clinicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric RadiologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207