Pattern recognition in menstrual bleeding diaries by statistical cluster analysis
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
BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper is to empirically identify a treatment-independent statistical method to describe clinically relevant bleeding patterns by using bleeding diaries of clinical studies on various sex hormone containing drugs. METHODS: We used the four cluster analysis methods single, average and complete linkage as well as the method of Ward for the pattern recognition in menstrual bleeding diaries. The optimal number of clusters was determined using the semi-partial R2, the cubic cluster criterion, the pseudo-F- and the pseudo-t2-statistic. Finally, the interpretability of the results from a gynecological point of view was assessed. RESULTS: The method of Ward yielded distinct clusters of the bleeding diaries. The other methods successively chained the observations into one cluster. The optimal number of distinctive bleeding patterns was six. We found two desirable and four undesirable bleeding patterns. Cyclic and non cyclic bleeding patterns were well separated. CONCLUSION: Using this cluster analysis with the method of Ward medications and devices having an impact on bleeding can be easily compared and categorized.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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