Evaluation of menstrual bleeding patterns: a new proposal for a universal guideline based on the analysis of more than 4500 bleeding diaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a universal guideline allowing the comparison of interventions like oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy with an impact on menstrual bleeding pattern. METHODS: Literature analysis and cluster analysis of 4612 bleeding diaries. RESULTS: We summarized key definitions needed for the evaluation of menstrual bleeding patterns from the literature. We developed a methodology to systematically evaluate menstrual bleeding patterns that distinguishes between cyclical and continuous hormonal regimens. CONCLUSION: This universal guideline can be applied to all prospective clinical studies that affect menstrual bleeding patterns. It allows regulatory agencies and prescribing physicians to make meaningful comparisons of different products.
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 | 0.070 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".