Early postmenopausal hormone therapy may prevent cognitive impairment later in life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Estrogen deficiency has been implicated as a risk factor for cognitive impairment in elderly women, yet the role of hormone therapy (HT) to prevent this event remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of administration of HT for 2 to 3 years in the early postmenopausal years on the risk of cognitive impairment 5 to 15 years later. DESIGN: We followed a group of 343 women who had received HT in randomized, placebo-controlled trials and were reexamined 5, 11, or 15 years after completion of therapy. Of these women, 261 received either HT or placebo for 2 to 3 years during the trials with no further hormone treatment until follow-up, and the remaining 82 women reported either prolonged or current use of HT at reexamination. Outcome of the study was cognitive function assessed by the short Blessed test that includes tests of orientation, concentration, and memory function on a scale of 0 to 28 (score > or =6 indicates cognitive impairment). RESULTS: The mean age of participants at follow-up was 65 +/- 3 years. There was no difference in the mean cognitive scores between ever HT users and never users. For women who received 2 to 3 years of HT, the risk of cognitive impairment (cognitive score > or =6) was decreased by 64% (odds ratio [OR]: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.15-0.90; P = 0.03). A similar OR was found in long-term/current HT users. Adjustment for age, alcohol intake, current smoking, and education did not alter the results. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggest that previous short-term HT administered in the early phase of the menopause may provide a long-term protection against cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".