Pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials evaluating the effects of a novel combined oral contraceptive containing estetrol/drospirenone on bleeding patterns in healthy women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bleeding patterns of a new combined oral contraceptive containing estetrol (E4) 15 mg/drospirenone (DRSP) 3 mg in a 24/4-day regimen. STUDY DESIGN: . Participants reported vaginal bleeding/spotting in daily diaries. For this bleeding analysis, we included participants with at least one evaluable cycle. We calculated mean frequencies of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding/spotting episodes and median duration of bleeding/spotting episodes, and assessed associations between treatment compliance, BMI and recent hormonal contraceptive use on bleeding/spotting outcomes. RESULTS: reported more absence of scheduled bleeding/spotting (aOR 1.68 [1.37-2.05]). Switchers and starters reported similar frequencies of unscheduled bleeding/spotting (aOR 0.94 [0.83-1.07]) and absence of scheduled bleeding/spotting (aOR 1.00 [0.85-1.19]). Three percent of participants discontinued for a bleeding-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: E4/DRSP use results in a predictable bleeding pattern with limited unscheduled bleeding/spotting. Noncompliance and BMI affect bleeding patterns. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Most estetrol/drospirenone users experience a predictable and regular bleeding pattern. Providers can educate patients about the expected bleeding patterns and should advise users that they may infrequently experience no scheduled bleeding/spotting. This information may improve user acceptability and continuation of this new oral contraceptive.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".