MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965426755 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.6.4.111

Oestrogen plus progestin doubles the risk of dementia in post-menopausal women

2003· letter· en· W1965426755 on OpenAlexaff
B B Sherwin, James McGill

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboProgestinGynecologyHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)DementiaMedroxyprogesterone acetateMenopauseInternal medicineCognitive impairmentEstrogenPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shumaker S, Legault C, Rapp S et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: the women’s health initiative memory study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA2003 ; 289 : 2651 –2661 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Does oestrogen plus progestin increase the risk of dementia or mild cognitive impairment among post-menopausal women? Randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. 39 Women’s Health Initiative Clinical Centres, USA; May 1996 to December 1999. 4532 post-menopausal women aged at least 65 years and free of dementia at study entry. 0.625 mg of conjugated equine oestrogen plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate (hormone therapy group), or placebo. Dementia or mild cognitive impairment according to DSM-IV criteria. Clinical assessment of dementia or mild cognitive impairment was assessed by an approved clinician using a structured protocol. Hormone therapy significantly increased the risk of dementia compared with placebo after a mean follow up of about … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.aulast%253DShumaker%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D289%26rft.issue%253D20%26rft.spage%253D2651%26rft.epage%253D2662%26rft.atitle%253DEstrogen%2BPlus%2BProgestin%2Band%2Bthe%2BIncidence%2Bof%2BDementia%2Band%2BMild%2BCognitive%2BImpairment%2Bin%2BPostmenopausal%2BWomen%253A%2BThe%2BWomen%2527s%2BHealth%2BInitiative%2BMemory%2BStudy%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.289.20.2651%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12771112%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.289.20.2651&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12771112&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F6%2F4%2F111.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183075600024&link_type=ISI

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)0.003
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207