Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare symptom experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and understanding of menopause and menopausal therapies in Australian and Laotian women. METHODS: This was a cross-cultural, questionnaire-based study involving 108 women (56 Australian women and 52 Laotian women aged 40-65 y) attending outpatient clinics in Australia and Laos. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were conducted using Student's t test or Mann-Whitney U test, where appropriate. RESULTS: Psychological symptoms, depression, vasomotor symptoms, and sexual dysfunction were significantly higher in Australian women compared with Laotian women (P < 0.05). Australian women perceived the meaning of menopause as aging (57%), whereas most Laotian women reported not knowing what menopause meant to them (81%). Australian women's fears about menopause included weight gain (43%), aging (41%), and breast cancer (38%), whereas Laotian women reported not knowing about potential menopausal problems (85%). Exercise (55%), education and awareness (46%), and improving lifestyle (41%) were reported by Australian women as being effective in alleviating menopausal symptoms, with only 21% reporting not knowing what was effective compared with 83% of Laotian women. Many women reported not knowing the risks/benefits of hormonal therapies (50% of Australian women and 87% of Laotian women) and herbal therapies (79% of Australian women and 92% of Laotian women). General practitioners were the most common source of menopause information for both Australians (73%) and Laotians (67%). CONCLUSIONS: Sociocultural factors influence women's perception of menopause. Psychological symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and vasomotor symptoms are more commonly reported by Australian women than by Laotian women. Women have a limited understanding of the risks/benefits of menopausal therapies, and culturally appropriate education is needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".