Best practices in care for menopausal patients: 16 years after the Women's Health Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) was a large, randomized clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health to determine whether menopause hormone therapy (MHT) prevented heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer, and osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Two WHI trials were stopped early, and the findings had a profound effect on the clinical practice guidelines related to postmenopausal health. This article provides an overview of the WHI MHT clinical trials and findings, discusses the early stoppage of the trials and subsequent implications, and details the current nomenclature and treatment options for women transitioning through menopause in light of the WHI. This study is based on a comprehensive literature review and an education activity developed by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. To best serve patients and individualize therapy, clinicians must provide the best estimate of potential risks or benefits to the individual patient. It is important to balance evidence of symptom relief with long-term risks and benefits that fit the patient's characteristics of family and personal health history. Armed with evidence to support various hormonal and non-hormonal options, well-informed clinicians can counsel women about MHT and potentially avoid negative impact on quality of life.
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 | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".