Managing Depression and Anxiety during the Menopausal Transition and Beyond: The Window of Vulnerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been recognized that women are at a higher risk than men to develop depression andanxiety and that such increased risk is particularly associated with reproductive cycle events.Moreover, recent prospective studies have demonstrated that the transition to menopause is associated with higher risk for new onset and recurrent depression. A number of biological and environmental factors are independent predictors for depression in this population, including the presenceof hot flushes, sleep disturbances, history of severe premenstrual syndrome or postpartum blues, stressful life events, history of depression, socioeconomic status and use of hormones and psycho-tropic agents. Accumulated evidence suggests that ovarian hormones modulate serotonin andnoradrenaline neurotransmission, a process that may be associated with the emergence of depressive symptoms and/or anxiety during periods of hormonal fluctuation in biologically predisposedsub-populations. Transdermal estradiol and serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants areefficacious in the treatment of depression and vasomotor symptoms in symptomatic, midlife women.Less is known about tailored treatment strategies for the management of anxiety in this vulnerablepopulation. In this chapter, we reviewed the existing evidence that the menopausal transition maybe associated with greater risk for anxiety and depression and the putative underlying mechanismscontributing to this increased risk or ‘window of vulnerability’. Hormonal and nonhormonal treatment strategies are critically examined, although more tailored treatment options for this population at risk are scarce.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".