MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983188201 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.20490

Women's midlife symptom-reporting in China: Cross-cultural analysis

2006· article· en· W1983188201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeanne L. Shea

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking Union Medical College
KeywordsChinaHumDemographyMedicineEast AsiaHeadachesPopulationGerontologyPsychologyHistoryPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report draws on data from the author's China Study of Midlife Women (CSMW) to test the popular notion that East Asian women have a low level of midlife symptom reporting compared with North American women. Symptom-reporting frequencies from a general population sample of 156 Chinese women of age 45-55 in China are compared with rates from published studies on midlife women in Japan, Canada, and the U.S. While the Japanese women's rates of reporting 16 core symptoms are uniformly low, the Chinese women's frequencies range from low to moderate. Except on hot flashes and headaches, the Chinese women's symptom-reporting rates tend to be more similar to the North American than to the Japanese sample. This analysis demonstrates that women's midlife symptom reporting in China cannot be equated with findings on women in Japan. Sources should be more cautious in making generalizations about East Asian women in this regard.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.455 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207