MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411003301 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2024-264400

Spontaneous postpartum recovery of mild traumatic brain injury induced growth hormone deficiency

2025· article· en· W4411003301 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Tabor, Kirstie Lithgow, Gregory Kline, Chantel T. Debert

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryMedicineGrowth hormoneGrowth hormone deficiencyPostpartum periodHormoneInternal medicineEndocrinologyPregnancyBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A woman in her late 20s developed persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS) following a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Symptoms included daily headaches, cognitive and physical fatigue and vision disturbances, which persisted despite extensive rehabilitation and medical interventions by multiple specialists. At 20 months post-mTBI, an endocrinological assessment confirmed post-traumatic growth hormone deficiency (GHD) through provocative glucagon stimulation testing (GST) revealing a peak GH level of 1.2 µg/L, and recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) therapy was initiated. The patient's fatigue and overall quality of life improved on treatment, but therapy was paused during pregnancy and breastfeeding. After giving birth, the patient requested a re-evaluation for GHD before resuming treatment. Remarkably, provocative testing revealed spontaneous recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-somatotropic axis with a peak GH level of 18.0 µg/L, and rhGH therapy was discontinued.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207