MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972035742 · doi:10.1002/pds.1605

Changes in utilisation of hormone replacement therapy in Australia following publication of the findings of the Women's Health Initiative

2008· article· en· W1972035742 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P W Main, Maxine Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentAGE-WELL
KeywordsMedicinePharmaceutical Benefits SchemeMedical prescriptionHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Government (linguistics)Family medicinePharmacoepidemiologyHormone therapyGerontologyGynecologyDemographyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of publication of the findings of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) on the utilisation of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in Australia with particular reference to the influence that media may have had on prescriber and consumer behaviour. METHODS: Retrospective data from the Australian Government Department of Health, Ageing DUSC Database and media hits from Factiva were reviewed to obtain prescription numbers, total cost and cost to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and number of media hits from the year before publication of the combined HRT arm of the WHI. RESULTS: Prescribing of HRT products decreased significantly immediately following publication of the combined HRT arm of the WHI and continued to decline at a slower rate following publication of the memory and oestrogen only arms of the study. CONCLUSIONS: These results represent a more accurate national estimate of the change in HRT use in Australian women relative to previous findings from surveys carried out in Australia.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug SafetySame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207