MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104518806 · doi:10.1080/13803395.2014.1000267

Executive functions in men and postmenopausal women

2015· article· en· W2104518806 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathalie Castonguay, Maxime Lussier, Aurélia Bugaïska, Catherine Lord, Louis Bherer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyExecutive functionsTask forceExecutive summaryCognitionTask (project management)GerontologyPsychiatryManagementMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to assess sex differences in older adults (55-65 years old) in executive functions and to examine the influence of hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal women. METHOD: We have assessed task performance in memory, visuospatial, and executive functions in 29 women using HT, 29 women who never used HT, and 30 men. RESULTS: Men outperformed never users in task switching and updating. HT users outperformed never users in updating. HT users outperformed never users and men in visual divided attention. DISCUSSION: The present study support previous findings that sex and HT impact cognition and bring new insights on sex and HT-related differences in executive functions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207