A critical appraisal of accuracy and cost of laboratory methodologies for the diagnosis of hypogonadism: the role of free testosterone assays.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biochemical diagnosis of male hypogonadism remains a controversial issue. The problem is compounded by the variety of laboratory assays available to measure serum testosterone (T) and the limited understanding, among clinicians, of their relative diagnostic validity. It is widely accepted that only the testosterone not bound to sex hormone-bounding globulin is metabolically active. Therefore, for diagnostic purposes it is frequent practice to order the measurement of free T (FT) or bioavailable T (BAT). Our objective is to describe the methods available for measuring FT and to review the literature to determine the relevance of ordering FT as a diagnostic laboratory tool in cases of suspected hypogonadism. We also provide our biochemical approach in evaluating men with T deficiency. The limited information available in this regard is frequently confined to the biochemistry literature. The few reliable studies indicate that analog-based measurement of FT offers no diagnostic or financial advantage over automated assay for total T. The manuscript also describes "How we do it." For optimal diagnostic accuracy and financial responsibility, total T and calculated FT (cFT) should be the tests employed for initial and confirmatory diagnosis respectively. Measurement of bioavailable T is an alternative option but not germane to the points to which we are calling attention in this paper. While clinicians should be discouraged from ordering FT assays, laboratories performing it should indicate what method was used and warned about possible reliability concerns. FT assays should no longer be a reimbursable test.
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 | 0.202 | 0.540 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".