MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394615912 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.08.24305450

Menopausal hormone therapy and the female brain: leveraging neuroimaging and prescription registry data from the UK Biobank cohort

2024· preprint· en· W4394615912 on OpenAlexaff
Cláudia Barth, Liisa A.M. Galea, Emily G. Jacobs, Bonnie H. Lee, Lars T. Westlye, Ann‐Marie G. de Lange

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersHelse Sør-Øst RHFNorges ForskningsrådSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungUniversitetet i OsloEuropean CommissionNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiobankNeuroimagingMedical prescriptionCohortMedicineHormone therapyCohort studyPsychiatryInternal medicinePharmacologyBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is generally thought to be neuroprotective, yet results have been inconsistent. Here, we present a comprehensive study of MHT use and brain characteristics in middle-to older aged females from the UK Biobank, assessing detailed MHT data, APOE ε4 genotype, and tissue-specific gray (GM) and white matter (WM) brain age gap (BAG), as well as hippocampal and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volumes. Methods A total of 19,846 females with magnetic resonance imaging data were included (current-users = 1,153, 60.1 ± 6.8 years; past-users = 6,681, 67.5 ± 6.2 years; never-users = 12,012, mean age 61.6 ± 7.1 years). For a sub-sample (n = 538), MHT prescription data was extracted from primary care records. Brain measures were derived from T1-, T2- and diffusion-weighted images. We fitted regression models to test for associations between the brain measures and MHT variables including user status, age at initiation, dosage and duration, formulation, route of administration, and type (i.e., bioidentical vs synthetic), as well as active ingredient (e.g., estradiol hemihydrate). We further tested for differences in brain measures among MHT users with and without a history of hysterectomy ± bilateral oophorectomy and examined associations by APOE ε4 status. Results We found significantly higher GM and WM BAG (i.e., older brain age relative to chronological age) as well as smaller left and right hippocampus volumes in current MHT users, not past users, compared to never-users. Effects were modest, with the largest effect size indicating a group difference of 0.77 years (∼9 months) for GM BAG. Among MHT users, we found no significant associations between age at MHT initiation and brain measures. Longer duration of use and older age at last use post menopause was associated with higher GM and WM BAG, larger WMH volume, and smaller left and right hippocampal volumes. MHT users with a history of hysterectomy ± bilateral oophorectomy showed lower GM BAG relative to MHT users without such history. Although we found smaller hippocampus volumes in carriers of two APOE ε4 alleles compared to non-carriers, we found no interactions with MHT variables. In the sub-sample with prescription data, we found no significant associations between detailed MHT variables and brain measures after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Discussion Our results indicate that population-level associations between MHT use, and female brain health might vary depending on duration of use and past surgical history. Future research is crucial to establish causality, dissect interactions between menopause-related neurological changes and MHT use, and determine individual-level implications to advance precision medicine in female health care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments→French-language works237,207→