MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W144135884

Sex, estrogen and working memory : the effects of sex-related differences and estrogen suppression on neuropsychological test performance

2010· article· en· W144135884 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lisa Lejbak

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationStrongUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsEstrogenPsychologyTest (biology)NeuropsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceInternal medicineBiologyCognition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This body of research investigates the effects of sex and estrogen on higher brain functions, in general, and on working memory, in particular. A female advantage for object-location and verbal working memory has been reported, and estrogen supplementation facilitates performance of the same. Less is known about whether the female advantage is due to the verbalizability of the stimuli, and whether estrogen-suppression adversely affects performance on working memory and other neuropsychological domains sensitive to estrogen. Study 1 examined sex-related differences in young adults on an object-location working memory measure that varied in verbalizability of stimuli and task presentation (i.e., manual or computer); as expected, females performed better than males regardless of the verbalizability of the stimuli or task presentation. Study 2 examined sex-related differences in young adults on the n-back working memory task across verbal, spatial, and object conditions. Contrary to the hypotheses, there was no sex effect for the verbal version of the n-back task, and males actually performed better than females on the object version; as expected, males performed better than females on the spatial version. Study 3 investigated the effect of estrogen suppression in middle-aged and older adult females undergoing treatment for estrogenic breast cancer using the experimental working memory measures from Studies 1 and 2, and a comprehensive neuropsychological battery that included measures considered to be either sensitive (e.g., letter fluency) or insensitive (e.g., spatial ability) to the female advantage and the effects of estrogen. The estrogen suppression group performed more poorly than healthy age-matched controls on certain estrogen-sensitive measures (i.e., speeded visuomotor attention, speeded manual dexterity, and letter fluency), but unexpectedly, the groups did not differ on any of the memory measures presumed to be estrogen-sensitive. This body of research suggests that although certain working memory measures are sensitive to sex effects, the direction depends on the domain, and that estrogen suppression does not impact working memory in postmenopausal women but does adversely impact speeded performance measures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207