MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167398263 · doi:10.4061/2010/845180

Progesterone and Bone: Actions Promoting Bone Health in Women

2010· article· en· W2167398263 on OpenAlexaff
Vanadin Seifert‐Klauss, Jerilynn C. Prior

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Osteoporosis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone remodelingBone mineralOsteoporosisBone resorptionInternal medicineEndocrinologyProgestinAmenorrheaEstrogenPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estradiol (E(2)) and progesterone (P(4)) collaborate within bone remodelling on resorption (E(2)) and formation (P(4)). We integrate evidence that P(4) may prevent and, with antiresorptives, treat women's osteoporosis. P(4) stimulates osteoblast differentiation in vitro. Menarche (E(2)) and onset of ovulation (P(4)) both contribute to peak BMD. Meta-analysis of 5 studies confirms that regularly cycling premenopausal women lose bone mineral density (BMD) related to subclinical ovulatory disturbances (SODs). Cyclic progestin prevents bone loss in healthy premenopausal women with amenorrhea or SOD. BMD loss is more rapid in perimenopause than postmenopause-decreased bone formation due to P(4) deficiency contributes. In 4 placebo-controlled RCTs, BMD loss is not prevented by P(4) in postmenopausal women with increased bone turnover. However, 5 studies of E(2)-MPA co-therapy show greater BMD increases versus E(2) alone. P(4) fracture data are lacking. P(4) prevents bone loss in pre- and possibly perimenopausal women; progesterone co-therapy with antiresorptives may increase bone formation and BMD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OsteoporosisSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207