MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4320076240 · doi:10.35493/medu.41.16

Evaluating the effectiveness of NSAIDs and vasopressin receptor antagonists as primary dysmenorrhea treatments

2022· article· en· W4320076240 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nyla Syed, Thunuvi Waliwitiya

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Meducator · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVasopressinTransdermalVasopressin receptorMenstruationPharmacologyInternal medicineReceptorAntagonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary dysmenorrhea describes the intensely painful uterine contractions experienced during menstruation. It is associated with elevated prostaglandin production in the uterine area and primarily affects adolescents. There are several treatment options available for primary dysmenorrhea, however, there is a lapse in research assessing their efficacy and reliability. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview and evaluation of two forms of treatment for primary dysmenorrhea: non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and vasopressin receptor antagonists. While studies conducted on the effectiveness of NSAIDs have shown consistent results, research conducted on vasopressin receptor antagonists remains contradictory. As such, the clinical efficacy of vasopressin receptor antagonists remains inconclusive, exposing several limitations and areas that require additional research. Furthermore, this review discusses the efficacy of promising novel treatments (i.e. levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, intravaginal rings, transdermal patches) and highlights the importance of additional studies for validation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Meducator→Same topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior→French-language works237,207→