Culture and symptom reporting at menopause
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present paper is to review recent research on the relationship of culture and menopausal symptoms and propose a biocultural framework that makes use of both biological and cultural parameters in future research. Medline was searched for English-language articles published from 2000 to 2004 using the keyword 'menopause' in the journals--Menopause, Maturitas, Climacteric, Social Science and Medicine, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Journal of Women's Health, Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of Epidemiology, Lancet and British Medical Journal, excluding articles concerning small clinical samples, surgical menopause or HRT. Additionally, references of retrieved articles and reviews were hand-searched. Although a large number of studies and publications exist, methodological differences limit attempts at comparison or systematic review. We outline a theoretical framework in which relevant biological and cultural variables can be operationalized and measured, making it possible for rigorous comparisons in the future. Several studies carried out in Japan, North America and Australia, using similar methodology but different culture/ethnic groups, indicate that differences in symptom reporting are real and highlight the importance of biocultural research. We suggest that both biological variation and cultural differences contribute to the menopausal transition, and that more rigorous data collection is required to elucidate how biology and culture interact in female ageing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".