Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since their introduction in 1960, oral contraceptives have undergone an evolution in content and dosage. The doses of the steroid components of combination oral contraceptives have been dramatically decreased since the first formulations. Ethinyl estradiol is now used as the estrogenic component of most combination oral contraceptives. The majority of progestins currently used in combination oral contraceptives are derivatives of 19-nortestosterone. However, drospirenone, which is combined with ethinyl estradiol in a new combination oral contraceptive, is a novel progestin that is derived from 17 alpha-spirolactone and is an analogue of spironolactone. The extremely low failure rate with ideal use of combination oral contraceptives is seldom duplicated in actual usage. Women often discontinue combination oral contraceptives within the first 2 months due to side effects that would likely have decreased over time. Although there are some areas of increased health risk with combination oral contraceptives, the benefits far outweigh the potential risks. In addition to providing effective contraception, combination oral contraceptives are sometimes used for their many noncontraceptive health benefits--e.g., treatment of menstrual irregularities and management of premenstrual symptoms. The most practical solution to the problem of poor compliance appears to lie in providing adequate education and counseling to women using combination oral contraceptives so that they know how to use them properly and what side effects they might expect. Patients also need to be given the facts about potential increases in the risk of certain conditions to help correct any misperceptions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.011 |
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".