The effects of estrogens on spatial learning and memory in female rodents – A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estrogens have inconsistent effects on learning and memory in both the clinical and preclinical literature. Preclinical literature has the advantage of investigating an array of potentially important factors contributing to the varied effects of estrogens on learning and memory, with stringently controlled studies. This study set out to identify specific factors in the animal literature that influence the effects of estrogens on cognition, for possible translation back to clinical practice. The literature was screened and studies meeting strict inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Eligible studies included female ovariectomized rodents with an adequate vehicle for the estrogen treatment, with an outcome of spatial learning and memory in the Morris water maze. Training days of the Morris water maze were used to assess acquisition of spatial learning, and the probe trial was used to evaluate spatial memory recall. Continuous outcomes were pooled using a random effects inverse variance method and reported as standardized mean differences with 95 % confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were developed a priori to assess important factors. The overall analysis favoured treatment for the later stages of training and for the probe trial. Factors including the type of estrogen, route, schedule of administration, age of animals, timing relative to ovariectomy, and duration of treatment were all found to be important. The subgroup analyses showed that chronic treatment with 17β-estradiol, either cyclically or continuously, to young animals improved spatial recall. These results, observed in animals, can inform and guide further clinical research on hormone replacement therapy for cognitive benefits.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".