Randomized clinical trial of a handheld cooling device (Menopod<sup>®</sup>) for relief of menopausal vasomotor symptoms
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
OBJECTIVE: Anecdotal reports suggest that application of a cool device to the back of the neck at the onset of a hot flush can afford symptomatic relief. The effects of a novel handheld mechanical cooling device in a population of perimenopausal women with moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms were evaluated. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study, 40 perimenopausal women experiencing ≥ 7 moderate-to-severe hot flushes per day were recruited at a single university site. Women were randomized to the active (n = 20) or sham (n = 20) device, which was applied to the back of the neck with each hot flush over the 4-week treatment period. Hot flush scores were calculated based on frequency and severity of symptoms. The Carpenter Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale and Zung Anxiety Scale were used to evaluate impact on quality of life. At study end, participants completed an open-ended questionnaire to assess the degree of unblinding and overall subjective improvement in symptoms with use of the device. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between the effects of the active and sham device. However, thematic analysis of the open-ended questionnaire revealed that 12/17 women (70.6%) in the active group, compared to 4/18 (22.2%) women in the sham group felt the device provided some symptomatic relief. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of women using the active device acknowledged that its cooling effect afforded a degree of symptomatic relief, the symptom scores chosen for this pilot study did not reflect a beneficial effect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 it