MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994783490 · doi:10.1586/ecp.09.37

Transdermal contraceptive patches: current status and future potential

2009· article· en· W1994783490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rose Milanes-Skopp, Anita L. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransdermal patchPillBustTransdermalDosingVenous thromboembolismBoomPharmacologySurgeryThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.448 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical PharmacologySame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207