MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248009175 · doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248137

Injectable Contraception

2010· review· en· W4248009175 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Reproductive Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedroxyprogesterone acetateMedicineBreastfeedingBirth controlBone mineralFamily planningPregnancyGynecologyObstetricsDeveloped countryMedroxyprogesteronePopulationPediatricsOsteoporosisResearch methodologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineEstrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injectable contraception has many advantages and is a popular birth control method worldwide. Its efficacy is independent of a daily action or an intervention around the time of coitus. It is highly efficacious and well tolerated in general. In the United States, the available injectable contraceptive is depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Its use is associated with a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) that is largely if not completely reversible over time and very comparable to the BMD loss associated with pregnancy and breastfeeding. The available knowledge on the impact of BMD loss on the risks of fractures later in life is incomplete, but in the light of the small magnitude of impact of DMPA on BMD and its reversibility, any increase in the risk of osteoporotic fractures is likely to be small. This article reviews the recent evidence on DMPA's efficacy, risks and benefits, and side effects with a focus on bone health issues.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.361 · 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