Age at menarche and risk of multiple sclerosis (MS): a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Some studies have looked at the age at menarche and risk of Multiple Sclerosis (MS).We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate a pooled odds ratio of developing MS by increasing age at menarche. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Ovid, google scholar and gray literature (references of references, congress abstracts) up to 10th April 2019. Results The literature search found 312 articles. After eliminating duplicates, reviews, case reports and trials, 18 articles remained. Three articles were ultimately included in the final analysis. Two studies were from Iran, and one from Canada. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for increasing 1 year of age at menarche was 0.88 (95% CI:0.82-0.94), with no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 49%, p = 0.1). Mean age at menarche was significantly different between case and control groups (mean difference = − 0.22, 95% CI = -0.42,-0.02). Conclusion The result of this systematic review showed that the risk of MS decreases by increasing age at menarche.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".