Association Between the Route of Administration and Formulation of Estrogen Therapy and Hypertension Risk in Postmenopausal Women: A Prospective Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertension is the leading global cause of cardiovascular disease and premature mortality in women. The effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) on blood pressure are uncertain but may be related to route of estrogen administration and formulation of estrogen. We sought to determine the association between route of administration and formulation of estrogen HT and hypertension risk in postmenopausal women. Methods: Population-based cohort study with women aged ≥45 years who filled ≥2 consecutive prescriptions for estrogen-only HT, identified from linked provincial health administrative data from Alberta, Canada, between 2008 and 2019. The primary outcome, incident hypertension, was identified using standardized International Classification of Diseases , Ninth and Tenth Revision . Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for hypertension in women using oral HT compared with nonoral HT (transdermal, vaginal, or intramuscular). Results: In total, 112 240 women used an estrogen-only form of HT. Oral estrogen was associated with a higher risk of hypertension compared with both transdermal (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.08–1.20]) and vaginal (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.13–1.25]) estrogens. Conjugated equine estrogen was associated with an increased risk of hypertension compared with estradiol (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04–1.14]) but not estrone (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93–1.10]). Duration of estrogen exposure and cumulative dose of estrogen was positively associated with risk of hypertension. Conclusions: Oral estrogen-only HT use was associated with an increased risk of hypertension in women. In women using estrogen-only HT, nonoral estradiol at the lowest dose and for the shortest time-period is associated with the lowest risk of hypertension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".