MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1864358431

La perte osseuse est-elle une crainte pour les utilisatrices d’acétate de médroxyprogestérone-retard (Depo-Provera®)?

2005· article· fr· W1864358431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karine Cloutier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedroxyprogesterone acetateGynecologyMedroxyprogesteroneMedicineEstrogenEndocrinology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume L’acetate de medroxyprogesterone-retard est une methode de contraception particulierement utile chez les patientes ayant des problemes d’observance avec les contraceptifs oraux ou presentant des contre-indications aux oestrogenes. Un avis de Sante Canada a recemment mis en garde les utilisatrices d’acetate de medroxyprogesterone-retard contre des modifications de la densite minerale osseuse associees a ce medicament1. Quelles sont les preuves scientifiques justifiant cet avis? Abstract Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate is a particularly useful method of contraception for patients who have difficulty complying with oral contraceptive use, or who have contraindications to estrogen use. Health Canada has recently issued a warning to users of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate with regard to associated changes in bone mineral density. What scientific evidence supports this claim? Key Words: Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, bone mineral density, contraception.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207