Hormone Therapy Administration in Postmenopausal Women and Risk of Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HRT, consisting of estrogens alone, or in combination with a progestogen, is widely used for the relief of symptoms in postmenopausal women. Early observational studies have suggested that HRT might be associated with a reduced risk of cardio- and cerebro-vascular events. These encouraging results prompted randomized controlled trials assessing the risks and benefits of HRT in primary and secondary prevention of arterial vascular events. However, these clinical trials and further observational studies did not confirm the protective effect of HRT; it is now established that HRT increases the risk of stroke. This increased risk is mainly related to an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Oral estrogen alone and combined with progestogen are associated with a similar increased risk, which may be dose dependent. Conversely, a low dose of transdermal estrogens with or without a progestogen does not seem to be associated with such an increased risk of stroke, whereas the impact of tibolone, a synthetic steroid, remains uncertain. In summary, there is now a large amount of evidence demonstrating that HRT is associated with increased risk of stroke, in particular, ischemic subtype.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".