MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Menopausal Hormone Therapy Use Among Postmenopausal Women

2024· article· en· W4402903016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Health Forum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyMedicineMenopauseHormone therapyPostmenopausal womenHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Medical prescriptionDemographyGynecologyInternal medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthBreast cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is the treatment of choice for symptoms of menopause. However, its adoption is hindered by the risk-benefit trade-off in relation to acute and chronic diseases. Objective: To evaluate trends in and correlates of MHT use among postmenopausal women in the US from 1999 to March 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional analysis of MHT use used data from the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Participants included noninstitutionalized US postmenopausal women from 10 NHANES study cycles (1999-2000 to 2017-March 2020 [pre-COVID-19 pandemic]). Data were analyzed from December 2023 to April 2024. Exposures: NHANES study cycle. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of MHT use was extracted from the prescription medication data collected during NHANES household interviews. MHT formulations were determined by hormone type. Results: Data on 13 048 US postmenopausal women (47.1% ≥65 years old) were analyzed. From 1999 to 2020, the prevalence of MHT use decreased among women of all age groups, from 26.9% (95% CI, 22.6%-31.7%) in 1999 to 4.7% (95% CI, 3.4%-6.5%) in 2020. Until 2002, MHT use was highest among women aged 52 to 65 years, but since 2005, MHT use has been highest among women younger than 52 years. MHT use decreased by 23.5% (95% CI, 11.4%-35.6%), 31.4% (95% CI, 23.4%-39.5%), and 10.6% (95% CI, 6.3%-14.8%) for women younger than 52 years, 52 years to younger than 65 years, and 65 years and older, respectively. Prevalence of MHT use decreased from 13.8% (95% CI, 8.5%-21.7%) to 2.6% (95% CI, 1.5%-4.6%) for Hispanic women, 11.9% (95% CI, 8.5%-16.3%) to 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%) for non-Hispanic Black women, and 31.4% (95% CI, 27.1%-36.1%) to 5.8% (95% CI, 4.1%-8.2%) for non-Hispanic White women. Non-Hispanic White women consistently had the highest prevalence of MHT use. Estrogen-only formulation accounted for more than 50% of the MHT for most study periods. The prevalence of MHT use varied by family income-to-poverty ratio, health insurance coverage in all racial and ethnic groups, weight, and smoking status among non-Hispanic White women, as well as by education attainment among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study show that over the past 2 decades, MHT use declined among US postmenopausal women of all age and racial and ethnic groups. Women of racial and ethnic minority groups had lower prevalence of MHT use compared to non-Hispanic White women.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · 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