Menstrual Patterns during the Inception of Perimenopause: What Are the Predictors and What Do They Predict?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from a British national cohort of women born in 1946, this study aims to identify menstrual patterns during the first year of perimenopause (based on the frequency of periods, the numbers of days bled each month, and menstrual flow) to see if they are related to health and behaviors earlier in adult life and if they predict entry into menopause and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use. Three groups of women were identified using cluster analysis: those who experienced more of these characteristics, those who experienced less, and those who experienced few changes. In polychotomous logistic regression models, the likelihood ratio tests indicated that parity and body mass index (BMI) were significant at the 5% level. The odds ratios from the parity models showed a gradient, with women from the Less cluster being most likely to have no children and those from the More cluster most likely to have at least one child. A similar gradient was detected for BMI, with the Less cluster tending to be underweight. The Less cluster came into menopause significantly faster than the Same and the More groups, where the estimated hazard ratios (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) were, respectively, 0.61 (0.37-0.99) and 0.24 (0.11-0.52). There was no association between the clusters and later HRT use. The findings suggest that menstrual characteristics should be more carefully studied in population studies of the climacteric.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".