MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131266941 · doi:10.1586/14737175.7.10.1285

Menopausal transition and depression: who is at risk and how to treat it?

2007· review· en· W2131266941 on OpenAlexaff
Cláudio N. Soares

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Transition (genetics)PsychiatryMedicinePsychologyPsychotherapistEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The menopausal transition may impose a challenge to clinicians and health professionals who are invested in improving women's quality of life; after all, this period in life is commonly marked by significant hormone fluctuations accompanied by bothersome vasomotor symptoms (e.g., hot flushes and night sweats) and other somatic complaints. In addition, more recent epidemiologic data demonstrate that some women transitioning to menopause may be at higher risk for developing depression when compared with their risk during premenopausal years; this increased risk appears to be true even among those who had never experienced depression before. In this article, putative contributing factors for this window of vulnerability for depression during the menopausal transition are critically reviewed. Hormonal and nonhormonal factors that may contribute to the occurrence of physical and/or psychiatric complaints during the menopausal transition are discussed. Lastly, existing evidence-based treatment strategies are summarized.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207