RETRACTED ARTICLE: A one-year observational cohort study of menstrual cramps and ovulation in healthy, normally ovulating women
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a prospective, observational community cohort study with the objective of investigating menstrual cramp occurrence related to ovulatory characteristics. Women reported cramp intensity on daily Menstrual Cycle Diary© records over one year. Ovulation and luteal phase lengths were assessed by validated Quantitative Basal Temperature© (QBT) analysis. Healthy, normal-weight, non-smoking community dwelling premenopausal women ages 21-41 years with two consecutive, normally ovulatory, normal-length menstrual cycles were enrolled. All 53 women, with 13.6 ± 2.8 cycles per woman, reported at least one cramp episode of median intensity 1.5 [0-4 scale; range 1.0-3.5], and 2.2 days' [range 1.0-10.2] duration. Within the 49 women who experienced all ovulatory cycle types (normal, short luteal length [SLL < 10 days] and anovulatory), median cramp intensity was greater in normal-length cycles having subclinical ovulatory disturbances (SLL and anovulatory; median 1.4 [range 0.0-2.8]) than in normally ovulatory cycles (median 1.2 [range 0.0-2.3]) (P = 0.023). Cramp Scores did not differ by ovulatory status within the 19 women having both normally ovulatory and anovulatory cycles (P = 0.222). Within-woman 1-year Cramp Scores were not different in anovulatory and normally ovulatory menstrual cycles but were more intense with ovulatory disturbances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".