Endometrial safety and bleeding patterns during a 2-year study of 1 or 2 mg 17β-estradiol combined with sequential 5-20 mg dydrogesterone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the endometrial safety and bleeding patterns of 17β-estradiol sequentially combined with dydrogesterone. Methods: Endometrial safety and bleeding patterns were assessed in 579 postmenopausal women randomized to oral treatment with placebo, 1 mg/day 17β-estradiol sequentially combined with 5 or 10 mg/day dydrogesterone for the last 14 days of each 28-day cycle, or 2 mg/day 17β-estradiol sequentially combined with 10 or 20 mg/day dydrogesterone for the last 14 days of each 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued for 26 cycles. Proliferative endometrium, endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial malignancy in the end-of-study biopsy were considered as inadequate progestational responses. Results: Biopsies were not available in 137 women mainly because of an insufficient treatment period or non-compliance. An adequate progestational response was seen in more than 98% of the 442 women who underwent biopsy after treatment. Bleeding data were not available in 193 women, most of whom did not remain on treatment for the full 26 cycles. The 1-mg 17β-estradiol dose was associated with less cyclic and intermittent bleeding than the 2-mg dose. Higher doses of dydrogesterone were associated with a higher incidence of cyclic bleeds and a later day of onset, while duration, severity and regularity were similar in all groups irrespective of estradiol or dydrogesterone dose. Conclusion: Sequential combinations of 1 mg 17β-estradiol with 5 or 10 mg dydrogesterone and 2 mg 17β-estradiol with 10 or 20 mg dydrogesterone are associated with very good endometrial safety. The incidence of bleeding is lower with the 1-mg dose of 17β-estradiol.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".