A primer on the hormone-free interval for combined oral contraceptives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dosing, schedules, and other aspects of combined oral contraceptive (COC) design have evolved in recent years to address a variety of issues including short- and long-term safety, bleeding profiles, and contraceptive efficacy. In particular, several newer formulations have altered the length of the hormone-free interval (HFI), in order to minimize two key undesired effects that occur during this time: hormone-withdrawal-associated symptoms (HWaS) and follicular development. OBJECTIVE: This primer reviews our current understanding of the key biological processes that occur during the HFI and how this understanding has led to changes in the dosing and schedule of newer COC formulations. MAIN MESSAGE: In brief, HWaS are common, underappreciated, and a likely contributor to COC discontinuation; because of this, shortening the HFI and/or supplementing with estrogen during the progestin-free interval may provide relief from these symptoms and improve adherence. A short HFI (with or without estrogen supplementation) may also help maintain effective follicular suppression and contraceptive efficacy, even when the overall dose of estrogen throughout the cycle is low. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the available data about HWaS and follicular activity during the HFI support the rationale for recent COC designs that use a low estrogen dose and a short HFI. The availability of a variety of COC regimens gives physicians a range of choices when selecting the most appropriate COC for each woman's particular priorities and needs.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".