Sleep in menopause: differential effects of two forms of hormone replacement therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate differences between two regimens of estrogen/progestogen replacement therapy on nocturnal sleep in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Twenty-one (21) postmenopausal women were studied. They were randomized into two treatment groups: (1) estrogen (Premarin 0.625 mg) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (Provera 5 mg) (n = 11) or (2) estrogen (Premarin 0.625 mg) and oral micronized progesterone (Prometrium 200 mg) (n = 10). Postmenopausal women were recorded for two consecutive nights in the sleep laboratory at baseline and again after 6 months of treatment in a randomized trial. The women also had to fill out evening and morning sleep and vigilance questionnaires for 7 days before baseline recordings and for 23 days before month 6 recordings. RESULTS: Sleep efficiency was found to be significantly improved in the micronized progesterone group. It increased by 8% (p = 0.014) with no such increase observed in the medroxyprogesterone acetate group. Time spent awake after sleep onset was also significantly improved in the micronized progesterone group but not in the medroxyprogesterone acetate group. On the other hand, menopausal symptoms and subjective measures of sleep (questionnaires) improved in both groups after treatment. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that medroxyprogesterone acetate and micronized progesterone are both effective for treating menopausal symptoms but that the latter might better improve the quality of sleep in postmenopausal women taking estrogen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".