Association between female hormonal factors and oro-facial pain: study in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the prevalence of oro-facial pain (OFP) in the population and female hormonal factors. The cross-sectional population study was conducted in a general medical practice in the north-west of England. A random sample of 4000 adults aged 18-65 years were mailed questionnaires, of whom 2504 responded (adjusted participation rate 74%). Of these 1245 women provided information on both OFP and hormonal factors. For pre- or peri-menopausal women, there was no relationship between oral contraceptive use and OFP (age-adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81, 1.45), whilst a high score on a pre-menstrual symptom questionnaire was associated with an age-adjusted RR of 1.87 (95% CI 1.36, 2.57). Those who reported menstruating for 6 days or longer had moderate increase in risk of OFP (age-adjusted RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.01, 1.91). In post-menopausal women, there was a moderate relationship between hormone replacement therapy use and OFP (age-adjusted RR 1.46; 95% CI 1.02, 2.08). For women overall, there was an increased risk of OFP in those who reported ever having had painful periods (age-adjusted RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.20, 1.80), but no association was found with the number of children. This cross-sectional community-based study adds important information on the relationship between female hormonal factors and OFP. Women who report OFP are more likely to report symptoms associated with menstruation. This may indicate either the importance of hormones per se or identify a group of women who are more likely to report symptoms in general.
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 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 | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".