MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909092201 · doi:10.1111/cen.13932

Adolescent use of combined hormonal contraception and peak bone mineral density accrual: A meta‐analysis of international prospective controlled studies

2019· review· en· W2909092201 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Endocrinology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone mineralMedicineConfidence intervalMeta-analysisInternal medicineProspective cohort studyOsteoporosisAccrualEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Objective Many women use combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) during adolescence during which they are accruing peak areal bone mineral density (BMD) that relates to lifetime fracture risk. To build BMD requires formation with which CHC‐related exogenous oestrogen may interfere. We compared peak BMD accrual in adolescents using and not using CHC. Design/Participants We performed literature searches for prospective published peer‐reviewed articles providing 12‐ to 24‐month BMD change in adolescent (12‐ to 19‐year‐old) women using CHC vs CHC‐unexposed control women. Methods Meta‐analyses used random‐effects models to assess BMD change rate at lumbar spine (LS) and other sites in adolescent CHC users vs CHC nonusers. Results Literature searches yielded 84 publications of which nine were eligible. Adolescent‐only data were sought from cohorts with wider age inclusions. The 12‐month LS meta‐analysis with eight paired comparisons in 1535 adolescents showed a weighted mean BMD difference of −0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.05 to 0.00) g/cm 2 in CHC‐exposed adolescents ( P = 0.04). The 24‐month LS meta‐analysis with five paired comparisons in 885 adolescents showed a highly significant weighted mean BMD difference of −0.02 (95% CI: −0.03 to −0.01) g/cm 2 in CHC‐exposed adolescents ( P = 0.0006). Heterogeneities by I 2 were 96% and 85%, respectively. Insufficient data for other bone sites precluded quantitative analysis. Conclusion Given that adolescent exposure to CHC appears to be increasing, this evidence for potential impairment of peak spinal BMD accrual is of concern and suggests a potential public health problem. Randomized controlled trial data are needed to determine CHC effects on adolescent bone health.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.113 · 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