MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087420309 · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000001659

Effects of combined 17β-estradiol and progesterone on weight and blood pressure in postmenopausal women of the REPLENISH trial

2020· article· en· W3087420309 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Black, Mary Jane Minkin, Shelli Graham, Brian Bernick, Sebastián Mirkin

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressurePlaceboVasomotorBody mass indexInternal medicineDiastoleEndocrinologyAdverse effectPostmenopausal womenMenopauseGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a single-capsule 17β-estradiol (E2)/progesterone (P4) on weight and blood pressure (BP) when treating moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women with a uterus. METHODS: Healthy postmenopausal women with a uterus (aged 40-65, body mass index ≤34 kg/m2, BP ≤140/90 mm Hg) were randomized to daily E2/P4 (mg/mg; 1/100, 0.5/100, 0.5/50, 0.25/50) or placebo in the phase 3 REPLENISH trial (NCT01942668). Changes in weight and BP from baseline to month 12 were evaluated. Potentially clinically important changes were defined as increases or decreases from baseline in weight by ≥15% and ≥11.3 kg, systolic BP by ≥20 mm Hg (absolute value ≥160 or ≤90 mm Hg), and diastolic BP by ≥15 mm Hg (absolute value ≥90 or ≤60 mm Hg). RESULTS: Overall mean changes in weight and BP from baseline to month 12 with E2/P4 were modest and generally not statistically or clinically significant versus placebo. Incidence of potentially clinically important changes was low for weight (E2/P4 vs placebo: 1.1-2.6% vs 2.2%), systolic BP (0.3-1.1% vs 1.1%), and diastolic BP (1.4-4.2% vs 3.2%). A small number of women had treatment-related, treatment-emergent adverse events of weight gain (1.4-2.6% vs 1.3%) or hypertension (0.2-1.2% vs 0%). Few women who discontinued E2/P4 had weight gain (1.6%) or hypertension (0.6%) as a primary reason. Efficacy profile on VMS was consistent with previous findings and not modified by body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve-month use of E2/P4 had no clinically meaningful impact on weight or BP in postmenopausal women of the REPLENISH study.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause SocietySame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207