Treating Recurrent Postmenopausal Vasomotor Symptoms in a Patient with a Positive Family History for Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report a case of recurrent hot flashes unresponsive to gabapentin in a postmenopausal patient with a positive family history of breast cancer. CASE SUMMARY: A 69-year-old Caucasian female experienced a recurrence of debilitating hot flashes for the past eight months. More recently, she failed a two-month trial of gabapentin 600 mg by mouth at bedtime after she previously received effective hormone replacement therapy (HRT) seven years ago with near-complete resolution of her symptoms. The patient had a sister and a niece who developed breast cancer in their 40s. DISCUSSION: The treatment of postmenopausal hot flashes in a patient with a positive family history of breast cancer represents a clinical challenge for many clinicians. This case is an example in which gabapentin was ineffective in the treatment of severe hot flashes in a postmenopausal woman. The risks and benefits of HRT compared with nonhormonal alternatives were assessed. CONCLUSION: In this case, a two-month trial of gabapentin 600 mg/day failed to demonstrate efficacy in reducing the severity, frequency, and duration of hot flashes. Controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the safety and efficacy of other therapeutic alternatives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".