Clinical Pain Perception and Hormone Replacement Therapy in Postmenopausal Women Experiencing Orofacial Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the magnitude of the relation between a postmenopausal woman's hormonal replacement status and clinical pain report in a sample of women experiencing orofacial pain. DESIGN: To accomplish this, pain ratings were collected during a routine chronic pain evaluation at an orofacial pain clinic from a sample of 87 postmenopausal women. RESULTS: Results of ANCOVA (controlling for pain duration) demonstrated that postmenopausal women receiving hormone replacement therapy (HRT) reported higher levels of pain than postmenopausal women not taking HRT. Numeric pain rating scales revealed large effect sizes for worst pain report (0.62), moderate differences for average (0.48) and current (0.39) pain levels, and trivial differences for least pain (0.04). Effect sizes for the McGill Pain Questionnaire indicated somewhat smaller differences (0.35-0.24) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to examine the relation between a woman's hormonal status and clinical pain perception and is the first to investigate the role of HRT in a postmenopausal woman's orofacial pain report in a clinical treatment setting. This area of inquiry is particularly salient given the high percentage of women who choose to initiate HRT either after hysterectomy or with the onset of menopause.
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 | 0.048 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".