MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897952239 · doi:10.1007/s11920-018-0972-1

Estrogens, Aging, and Working Memory

2018· review· en· W2897952239 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth Hampson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Psychiatry Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOhio State University
KeywordsPsychologyWorking memoryCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Working memory (WM) is a key process that is integral to many complex cognitive tasks, and it declines significantly with advancing age. This review will survey recent evidence supporting the idea that the functioning of the WM system in women is modulated by circulating estrogens. RECENT FINDINGS: In postmenopausal women, increased estrogen concentrations may be associated with improved WM function, which is evident on WM tasks that have a high cognitive load or significant manipulation demands. Experimental studies in rhesus monkeys and human neuroimaging studies support a prefrontal locus for these effects. Defining the basic neurochemical or cellular mechanisms that underlie the ability of estrogens to regulate WM is a topic of current research in both human and animal investigations. An emerging body of work suggests that frontal executive elements of the WM system are influenced by the circulating estrogen concentrations currently available to the CNS and that the effects are region-specific within the frontal cortex. These findings have implications for women's brain health and cognitive aging.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Psychiatry ReportsSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207