SAT-050 Other hormone defficiencies and side effects IN a cohort of adults IN TREATMENT WITH a biosimilar HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disclosure: E. Venegas moreno: None. A. Jimenez sanchez: None. P. Remon-Ruiz: None. M. Dios Fuentes: None. A. Soto: None. GOAL • To describe other hormone deficiencies and adverse events in a long-lasting cohort of 53 adults under growth hormone (GH) treatment. MATERIALS & METHODS • Transversal study. • Variables were retrospectively collected from the digital health record of the Virgen del Rocío University Hospital in August 2023. • Numerical variables are expressed as mean (standard deviation). Statistical significance was designated as a p-value < 0.05. • Elders defined as ≥ 65 years old. • IGF-1 reference values from our hormone laboratory: /div> Results: • 53 patients under treatment, 7 elders. • 49.35 (19.68) years old. • 22 (41.51%) men, 31 (58.49%) women. • 51 patients had hormonal deficits: - 43 (81.13%) LH/FSH. - 39 (73.58%) TSH. - 37 (69.81%) ACTH. - 10 (18.87%) AVP. /div> p-value = 0.043 /div> p-value = 0.037 /div> p-value = 0.042 /div> p-value = 0.035 • 16.18 (5.39) years in treatment. • 2 incident side effects (3.77%): 1 headache (continued), 1 dizziness (discontinued). • 12 incident benign tumors during treatment in 10 patients. /div> • 3 incident benign tumors before treatment in 3 patients. /div> • 4 incident neoplasms during treatment in 4 patients. /div> • Incident neoplasms before treatment: 0. • IGF-1 levels during treatment if: a. No tumor or neoplasms: 143.80 (53.75) ng/mL b. Tumor: 144.00 (40.83) ng/mL c. Neoplasm: 129.25 (49.28) ng/mL • In ANOVA analysis, we found no differences between groups regarding the variable "tumor" concerning IGF-1 (p-value=0.863) or age (p-value=0.813). • Age at the first tumor: 38.73 (17.98) years, at 9.93 (13.22) years under treatment. ConclusionS: • Pituitary tumors had the most co-secretory deficits. • A very low proportion of the sample developed side effects due to a biosimilar GH. • The number of neoplasms under treatment was low and comprised by skin cancers. • The development of tumors and neoplasms under treatment was not related to IGF-1 levels. Presentation: Saturday, July 12, 2025
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".