Hormone therapy for younger women may not increase CHD risk during 5 7 years follow-up, but stroke risk was increased independent of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rossouw JE, Prentice RL, Manson JE, et al . Postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease by age and years since menopause. JAMA 2007;297:1465–77. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ Gynaecology ★★★★★★★ Cardiology ★★★★★☆☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: 2 randomised placebo-controlled trials (Women’s Health Initiative [WHI] trials). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: {concealed}*.† ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded {clinicians, participants, data collectors, outcome assessors, and monitoring committee}*.† ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow-up period: mean 5.6‡ and 7.1§ years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: 40 US clinical centres. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Participants: 27 347 predominantly healthy postmenopausal women 50–79 years of age (mean age 63* and 64|| y). ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention conjugated equine oestrogen (CEO), 0.625 mg/day, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg/day (n = 8506), or placebo (n = 8102) in women with an intact uterus; CEO, 0.625 mg/day (n = 5310), or placebo (n = 5429) in women with a hysterectomy. ### ![Graphic][12]</img>Outcomes: coronary heart disease (CHD) (myocardial infarction or CHD death), stroke, total mortality, and a global index. ### ![Graphic][13]</img>Participant follow-up: 94%‡|| (intention-to-treat analysis). Overall, the HT and placebo groups did not differ for CHD, total mortality, and the global index; the risk of stroke was higher in the HT group … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DRossouw%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BE.%26rft.volume%253D297%26rft.issue%253D13%26rft.spage%253D1465%26rft.epage%253D1477%26rft.atitle%253DPostmenopausal%2BHormone%2BTherapy%2Band%2BRisk%2Bof%2BCardiovascular%2BDisease%2Bby%2BAge%2Band%2BYears%2BSince%2BMenopause%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.297.13.1465%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17405972%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.297.13.1465&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17405972&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F5%2F137.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000245404100023&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif [13]: /embed/inline-graphic-9.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".