MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304943218 · doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2022.101040

Oral contraceptives in the central nervous system: Basic pharmacology, methodological considerations, and current state of the field

2022· article· en· W4304943218 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroendocrinology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMoodMedicineCentral nervous systemNeuroscienceCognitionAffect (linguistics)PsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millions of women around the world use combined oral contraceptives (OCs), yet surprisingly little is known about their central nervous system (CNS) effects. This article provides a short overview of the basic pharmacology of OCs, emphasizing features that may be relevant to understanding their effects in the CNS. Historical and recent findings from studies of cognitive function, mood, and negative affect (depressive changes under OC use) are then reviewed. We also present data from an archival dataset from our own laboratory in which we explore dysphoric changes in women using four generations of contraceptive progestins. Current data in the field are consistent with a modest effect of OC use on CNS variables, but conclusions based on current findings must be made very cautiously because of multiple methodological issues in many published studies to date, and inconsistencies in the findings. Directions for future research over the next 10 years are suggested. (150 words).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.300 · 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