MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oxygenation and ventilation parameters in children with Prader-Willi syndrome without or with growth hormone treatment.

2024· article· en· W4404090810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Doxa Kotzia, Anastasia Polytarchou, Angeliki Moudaki, Georgia Koltsida, Christina Kanaka‐Gantenbein, Athanasios G. Kaditis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxygenationVentilation (architecture)MedicineGrowth hormoneInternal medicineCardiologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is characterized by muscle hypotonia, obesity, and hypothalamic dysfunction predisposing to OSAS and hypoventilation. Growth hormone (GH) is an approved treatment with potential favorable effects on oxygenation and ventilation during sleep. Aims: To compare children with PWS who were or were not receiving GH regarding oxycapnography parameters. Methods: Retrospective (June 2013-April 2023) analysis of most recent oxycapnography data. Results: 17 patients with PWS were studied: 5 were on GH (age range 2.3-14.7 y; median BMI-z 1.5, range 0.7-3.1; group 1); 8 were studied prior to GH (age 1.3-13.3 y; BMI-z 2.5, 1-3.99; group 2); and 4 were on NIV without GH (8.1-17.1 y; BMI-z 2.8, 2.6-3.1; group 3). Group 1 had no significant difference in ODI3, McGill oximetry score (MOS), %recording time with ETCO2>50 compared to group 2: ODI3 5.9/h (2.6-16/h) vs 10/h (3.3-47/h) (P=0.19); MOS 1 (1-4) vs 1 (1-2)(P=0.37) and %recording time with ETCO2>50 0% (0-0%) vs 0 (0.06-16.8%) (P=0.52). The two groups were similar in BMI-z (P=0.29). Conclusions: Children with PWS and with or without GH treatment did not differ in oxycapnography parameters or the degree of adiposity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207