MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001203102 · doi:10.1586/14737175.7.11s.s157

Role of psychiatric comorbidity on cognitive function during and after the menopausal transition

2007· review· en· W2001203102 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne Leventhal Alexander, Barbara Sommer, Lorraine Dennerstein, Miglena Grigorova, Thomas C. Neylan, Krista Kotz, Gregg Richardson, Robert Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionComorbidityMoodAnxietyPsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologyMenopauseDepression (economics)Cognitive declineMood disordersMedicineDiseaseDementiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While cognitive complaints are common during the menopausal transition, measurable cognitive decline occurs infrequently, often due to underlying psychiatric or neurological disease. To clarify the nature, etiology and evidence for cognitive and memory complaints during midlife, at the time of the menopausal transition, we have critically reviewed the evidence for impairments in memory and cognition associated with common comorbid psychiatric conditions, focusing on mood and anxiety disorders, attention-deficit disorder, prolonged stress and decreased quantity or quality of sleep. Both the evidence for a primary effect of menopause on cognitive function and contrarily the effect of cognition on the menopausal transition are examined. Impairment in specific aspects of executive function is explored. Evaluation and treatment strategies for the symptomatic menopausal woman distressed by changes in her day-to-day cognitive function with or without psychiatric comorbidity are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207