Hormone contraceptive use in young women: Altered mood states, neuroendocrine and inflammatory biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral contraceptives are used by millions of women worldwide, yet there are questions regarding the psychological and biological consequences of these medications. Considering that sex steroid hormones can regulate neuroendocrine and behavioral responses to stress, the current study examined mood and stress symptomatologies, as well as circulating levels of cortisol and inflammatory biomarkers among young women (N = 388), of whom, 47.0 % (n = 182) were using a form of hormonal contraception. Women using hormone contraceptives displayed significantly higher depressive and stress scores compared to non-users, whereas no differences were found for anxiety symptoms. Moreover, contraceptive users had markedly elevated plasma cortisol and C-reactive protein levels in comparison to non-users. Upon assessing women at different phases of their menstrual cycle, hormone contraceptive users displayed higher levels of cortisol compared to women in the follicular and luteal phases, in addition to higher levels of CRP levels compared to women in the luteal phase. Together, these findings suggest that hormone contraceptive use is linked to exaggerated basal neuroendocrine and inflammatory profiles, which could potentially increase sensitivity to the impacts of stressors and mood 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".