Endometrial Effects of Tibolone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Tibolone Histology of the Endometrium and Breast Endpoints Study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study designed to address the conflicting reports in the literature about the endometrial safety of tibolone (1.25 or 2.5 mg/d). Tibolone was compared with continuous combined conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (0.625 + 2.5 mg/d). METHODS: Subjects were randomized in a 1:1:2 ratio to tibolone 1.25 mg/d, 2.5 mg/d, and CEE/MPA, respectively. The one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) has been evaluated for the incidence of abnormal endometrial histology (hyperplasia or carcinoma) and hyperplasia and carcinoma separately for each of the two treatment groups and the treatment groups combined after 1 and 2 yr of treatment with tibolone, compared with CEE/MPA. RESULTS: A total of 3240 women were randomized, with 3224 receiving at least one dose of study medication. The incidence and upper one-sided 95% CI for the incidence of abnormal endometrium (hyperplasia or carcinoma), and hyperplasia and carcinoma separately, were calculated at end point, yr 1, and yr 2. The incidence (upper one-sided 95% CI) of abnormal endometrium at end point was 0.0 (0.5), 0.0 (0.4), and 0.2 (0.5) in the tibolone 1.25 mg, 2.5 mg, and CEE/MPA groups, respectively. During the entire treatment period, amenorrhea was reported more frequently with tibolone 1.25 mg (78.7%) and 2.5 mg (71.4%) than CEE/MPA (44.9%). CONCLUSION: The Tibolone Histology of the Endometrium and Breast Endpoints Study results confirm previous findings that tibolone does not induce endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma in postmenopausal women, and it is associated with a better vaginal bleeding profile than CEE/MPA.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".