Genistein reduces the number and duration of hot flashes in peri/post menopausal women in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multi‐center trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a safe, high‐purity, non‐plant derived, non‐allergenic, patent‐protected, proprietary genistein (geniVida) in alleviating hot flashes in peri/post menopausal women. Methods 84 peri/post menopausal women (minimum 7 hot flashes/day or 40/week) were enrolled in a randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel, multi‐center ICH/GCP trial and given a 30 mg capsule of geniVida or a 30 mg placebo capsule daily with breakfast for 12 weeks. Measurements included daily hot flashes, FSH, 17 beta‐estradiol, endometrial thickness and adverse events. Results Women on geniVida had fewer hot flashes/day from baseline to 8 and 12 weeks vs. women on the placebo (p=0.045 and p=0.015, respectively). 61.5% of women on geniVida had 50% or greater reduction in daily hot flashes vs. 25.9% of women on placebo. 88.5% of women on geniVida had 25% or greater reduction in duration of daily hot flashes vs. 59.3% of women on placebo. Severity of hot flashes was not different between groups. There were no differences between the groups for FSH, 17 beta‐estradiol, endometrial thickness and adverse events. Conclusions geniVida genistein was demonstrated to have a significant benefit in reducing the number and duration of daily hot flashes in peri/post menopausal women and may be used to manage menopausal symptoms without hormone replacement. Supported by DSM Nutritional Products, Inc.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".