Beyond Birth Control: The Neuroscience of Hormonal Contraceptives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hormonal contraceptives (HCs) are one of the most highly prescribed classes of drugs in the world used for both contraceptive and noncontraceptive purposes. Despite their prevalent use, the impact of HCs on the brain remains inadequately explored. This review synthesizes recent findings on the neuroscience of HCs, with a focus on human structural neuroimaging as well as translational, nonhuman animal studies investigating the cellular, molecular, and behavioral effects of HCs. Additionally, we consider data linking HCs to mood disorders and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and stress response as a potential mediator. The review also addresses the unique sensitivity of the adolescent brain to HCs, noting significant changes in brain structure and function when HCs are used during this developmental period. Finally, we discuss potential effects of HCs in combination with smoking-derived nicotine on outcomes of ischemic brain damage. Methodological challenges, such as the variability in HC formulations and user-specific factors, are acknowledged, emphasizing the need for precise and individualized research approaches. Overall, this review underscores the necessity for continued interdisciplinary research to elucidate the neurobiological mechanisms of HCs, aiming to optimize their use and improve women's health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".