Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of cholecystectomy: a prospective study based on the French E3N cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies in the United States and the United Kingdom have reported an increased risk of cholecystectomy among women exposed to menopausal hormone therapy, but with substantial heterogeneity between types of hormone treatments. We evaluated the risk of cholecystectomy associated with different regimens of menopausal hormone therapy in a large prospective cohort study. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2008, 70 928 menopausal women from the French E3N study cohort were sent questionnaires assessing their use of menopausal hormone therapy, medical history and lifestyle characteristics. The primary outcome was cholecystectomy. We analyzed the risk of cholecystectomy associated with use of menopausal hormone therapy using Cox proportional models, with age as time-scale. RESULTS: During follow-up, 45 984 (64.8%) of the participants were exposed to menopausal hormone therapy, and 2819 cholecystectomies were recorded. The use of menopausal hormone therapy was associated with an increased risk of cholecystectomy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.20) compared with women who were not exposed to menopausal hormone therapy. The association was restricted to unopposed oral estrogen therapy (adjusted HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14-1.67). Over 5 years, about 1 cholecystectomy in excess would be expected in every 150 women using oral estrogen therapy without progestogens, compared with women not exposed to menopausal hormone therapy. INTERPRETATION: The risk of cholecystectomy was increased among women exposed to oral estrogen menopausal hormone therapy, especially oral regimens without a progestagen. Complicated gallstone disease should be added to the list of potential adverse events to be considered when balancing the benefits and risks associated with menopausal hormone therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".