MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of Estrogen in the Treatment of Depression

2002· review· en· W2049329725 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Grigoriadis, Sidney H. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Therapeutics · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrogenMedicineAntidepressantMoodDepression (economics)Mood disordersPsychiatryPlaceboMajor depressive disorderInternal medicineAlternative medicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of estrogen in the treatment of depression is reviewed. The relation is examined in studies of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with depressed mood, in studies of depressive disorders, and in studies of estrogen as an adjunct to antidepressant medication. The literature has many methodologic shortcomings, including combining women of various ages, failure to confirm life stage, the use of different types of estrogens, the inclusion of women with a range of mood disturbances, and the enrollment of women with concurrent psychiatric illness. There are few controlled evaluations of the use of estrogen to supplement ongoing antidepressant treatment. Estrogen alone seems to be beneficial for improving mood in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Estrogen is superior to placebo for reproductive-related mood disorders, including postpartum depression and mild depressive disorders during perimenopause. Replication is necessary, especially in moderate to severe levels of major depression. Estrogen may augment antidepressant treatment. Assessment and treatment implications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations66
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TherapeuticsSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207