Transdermal contraceptive patches: current status and future potential
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transdermal contraceptive patches were first introduced in the USA in the spring of 2002. Approval in Canada and the EU followed soon thereafter. In the USA, sales of the patch were so robust that during the first months the manufacturer could not keep up with demand; by fall of 2002, the patch was the second highest selling combined hormonal contraceptive in the USA. This initial success reflected the strong demand that US women had for a more convenient delivery system that required less frequent dosing. Adolescent women in particular seemed to be more able to successfully use patches than they did pills. However, following a typical US pattern of boom-and-bust cycling and the initiation of litigation that claimed that there was a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the patch, sales in the USA dropped significantly. This article describes the hormonal properties of the contraceptive patches that are currently available, the clinical experience with the patch, and the results of postmarketing surveillance for VTE. We also discuss the potential for future contraceptive products using this route of administration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it