Estrogen replacement therapy after endometrial cancer: a survey of physicians' prescribing practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the prescribing practice of physicians with regard to estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) in symptomatic women with previous endometrial cancer is consistent with the available evidence. METHODS: A descriptive survey was conducted among physicians in Germany, using a questionnaire containing two hypothetical cases of endometrial cancer patients ('low-risk' and 'high-risk' disease) and menopausal symptoms. Physicians were asked about their prescribing practice concerning moderate to severe menopausal symptoms. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty questionnaires were sent out, with an overall response rate of 39.8%; 45.6% in the 'low-risk' case and 75.4% in the 'high-risk' case (p < 0.0001) stated that ERT is contraindicated. Only 12.9% were willing to prescribe ERT; 81.9% preferred to prescribe non-estrogenic alternatives (44.8% phytoestrogens, 29.0% selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). CONCLUSION: Despite the evidence that ERT does not increase the risk of recurrence of endometrial cancer, many physicians are reluctant to prescribe ERT in women suffering from moderate to severe menopausal symptoms.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it