Do women with primary breast cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced menopause have worse symptoms than those due to natural menopause?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8016 Background: Women receiving chemotherapy may have accelerated menopause. It is not known whether their menopausal symptoms are more severe than in (older) women undergoing a natural menopause. Methods: In this comparative study women with chemotherapy-induced menopause were compared with healthy women having recent menopause. Recent menopause was defined by last period >6 and <24 months prior to recruitment. Patients were a subset of those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer recruited to a prior study (Tchen et al: J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4175–83). Controls were either healthy participants in the prior study, or were recruited from a breast cancer screening program. Subjects were evaluated on 3 occasions 1 year (+/−2 months) apart and the primary evaluation for patients was at ∼1 year after end of chemotherapy. Subjects completed the FACT-G Quality of Life questionnaire with its subscales for endocrine (menopausal) symptoms (FACT-ES) and fatigue (FACT-F). Cognitive function was evaluated by the High Sensitivity Cognitive Screen (HSCS). Subjects were asked to donate blood for determination of estradiol, LH and FSH. The primary endpoint was the FACT-ES score. Results: For the primary comparison, median time since last period was 16 months for patients (N=41) and 17 months for controls (N=46, p=0.6). Median values for outcome measures are summarized in the table (higher values indicate better function). Follow-up data will be presented at the meeting.Conclusions: Patients with chemotherapy-induced menopause have worse symptoms than women experiencing a normal menopause. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".