Quality of life in menopausal women in the workplace – a systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menopausal women are a large and economically relevant group in the workforce. Yet their quality of life (QoL) and needs in the workplace have been neglected. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of QoL of menopausal women in the workplace. Systematic literature searches were executed, yielding 1211 references. After abstract screening, 156 articles remained for full-text screening. Finally, 12 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Age, educational level, type of work, working environment (e.g. crowding, confined spaces, noise, workstation design), permanent place of residency, mental factors (e.g. stress level, workload, work pattern), comorbidities, menopausal symptoms, time since menopause and physical activity have repeatedly been shown to affect QoL in the workplace in menopausal women. Low-threshold access to medical and psychological support as well as individual adaptation of the workplace environment are, among others, retrieved recommendations for employers from these findings. Further raising of awareness of special needs of menopausal working women as well as further systematic research programs are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it