Canadian Endocrinologists′ Perspectives on Treatment With Thyroid Hormone Substitutions in Euthyroid and Hypothyroid Patients: A 2023 THESIS Questionnaire Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The practice of treating hypothyroid and euthyroid patients with thyroid hormones varies between countries, as observed in the recent surveys of European thyroid experts, THESIS. As part of the THESIS initiative, we investigated Canadian endocrinologists' perspectives on this topic, focusing on combination therapy with either liothyronine (LT3) plus levothyroxine (LT4) or desiccated thyroid extract (DTE). DESIGN: Members of the Canadian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (CSEM) were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. RESULTS: Out of 348 eligible CSEM members, 68 (19.5%) respondents were included in the analysis. All respondents used LT4 as the first-line treatment for hypothyroid patients. Many respondents (64.7%) would consider LT4 + LT3 for patients on LT4 with persistent symptoms, whereas fewer would consider DTE (16.2%). Most respondents attributed persistent symptoms in LT4-treated patients to psychosocial factors, comorbidities, or unrealistic expectations. Approximately half of the respondents stated that thyroid hormone therapy is never indicated for euthyroid patients. The remaining respondents considered thyroid hormones for euthyroid women with infertility and high thyroid antibody levels (36.8%), depression (13.2%), and growing goiter (7.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Following current guidelines, LT4 tablet is the preferred treatment for hypothyroidism. Most respondents would consider triiodothyronine-containing therapy for patients with persistent symptoms, preferring LT4 + LT3 over DTE. The number of endocrinologists considering combination therapy for hypothyroid patients in Canada was higher than in Europe. Finally, at variance with current guidelines, a fraction of the respondents would consider thyroid hormones in patients with non-thyroidal conditions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".