MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805659955 · doi:10.1159/000487771

Physiological Differences in the Follicular, Luteal, and Menstrual Phases in Healthy Women Determined by Electrovestibulography: Depression, Anxiety, or Other Associations?

2017· article· en· W2805659955 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Lithgow, Zahra Moussavi

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychobiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaRiverview HospitalManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuteal phaseFollicular phaseMenstrual cycleAnxietyDepression (economics)PsychologyPhysiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicinePsychiatryHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrovestibulography (EVestG) recordings have been previously applied toward classifying and/or measuring the severity of several neurological disorders including depression with and without anxiety. This study's objectives were to: (1) extract EVestG features representing physiological differences of healthy women during their menses, and follicular and luteal phases of their menstrual cycle, and (2) compare these features to those observed in previous studies for depression with and without anxiety. Three EVestG recordings were made on 15 young healthy menstruating females during menses, and follicular and luteal phases. Three features were extracted, using the shape and timing of the detected spontaneously evoked vestibulo-acoustic field potentials. Using these features, a 3-way separation of the 3 phases was achieved, with a leave-one-out cross-validation, resulting in accuracy of > 72%. Using an EVestG shape feature, separation of the follicular and luteal phases was achieved with a leave-one-out cross-validation accuracy of > 93%. The mechanism of separation was not like that in previous depression analyses, and is postulated to be more akin to a form of anxiety and/or progesterone sensitivity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychobiologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207