MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142152392 · doi:10.1258/175404507780456782

Medical management of perimenopausal menorrhagia: an evidence-based approach

2007· review· en· W2142152392 on OpenAlex
Kirsten Duckitt

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause international · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPositive Living North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDanazolTranexamic acidLevonorgestrelMefenamic acidPillRandomized controlled trialGynecologyMenstrual cycleMenstruationCombined oral contraceptivesFamily planningObstetricsGestodeneBlood lossHormonePopulationInternal medicineSurgeryResearch methodologyEndometriosisPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About one-third of women report heavy menstrual bleeding at some time in their lives. Menstrual blood loss increases with age. Menorrhagia is usually defined as heavy but regular menstrual bleeding of over 80 ml/cycle. Complaints of menorrhagia are common. Several medical therapies are suitable for perimenopausal women with either regular or irregular heavy bleeding. The most effective is intrauterine levonorgestrel. Other options are oral progestogens, the combined oral contraceptive pill, tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, danazol and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.300 · 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