The role of sex hormones, oral contraceptive use, and its parameters on visuospatial abilities, verbal fluency, and verbal memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex hormones can cross the blood-brain barrier and access brain regions underlying higher-order cognition. Containing synthetic sex hormones, oral contraceptives (OC) have been found to modulate visuospatial and verbal abilities, though inconsistencies have been found in the literature. Among possible explanations, certain OC use parameters (progestin androgenicity, synthetic hormone levels, duration of use) have not received consistent consideration. Thus, the objectives were to (1) examine group differences between men, combined OC users, and naturally cycling women (NC women; not using OC) in visuospatial abilities, verbal fluency, and verbal memory and (2) investigate the contribution of endogenous and exogenous sex hormones on these effects. We also aimed to (3) identify OC use parameters relevant to cognitive outcomes. In total, 70 combined OC users, 53 early follicular (EF) women, 43 pre-ovulatory (PO) women, and 47 men underwent cognitive tests. Performance was compared based on hormonal milieus (OC, EF, PO, men) and OC users' contraceptive androgenicity (anti, low, high). Correlations between performance, hormone levels and OC use duration were also conducted. OC use dampened the sex difference that typically favors men in 3D visuospatial abilities, whereas its duration of use positively predicted verbal fluency. Androgenicity and hormone levels did not predict performance in any task. These results highlight the importance of considering OC use duration. Results also did not support a role for androgenicity in cognition. Importantly, combined OC use (including prolonged use) does not impair visuospatial, verbal, and memory functions in a healthy young sample.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".