MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409114364 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2025.1524474

Lifetime estrogen exposure and domain-specific cognitive performance: results from the IGNITE study

2025· article· en· W4409114364 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amber Watts, Shannon D. Donofry, Hayley S. Ripperger, Nicole M. Eklund, Lu Wan, Chaeryon Kang, George Grove, Lauren E. Oberlin, Swathi Gujral, Eric D. Vidoni, Jeffrey M. Burns, Edward McAuley, Charles H. Hillman, Arthur F. Kramer, M. Ilyas Kamboh, Kirk I. Erickson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEstrogenCognitionDomain (mathematical analysis)PsychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Disruptions in estrogen exposure (i.e., surgically induced menopause) have been linked to poorer cognitive aging and dementia risk. Hormone therapy use (e.g., birth control, menopausal hormone therapy) has shown mixed associations with cognitive performance, possibly due to limited cognitive test batteries. To address previous inconsistencies, we investigated baseline data from Investigating Gains in Neurocognition in an Intervention Trial of Exercise (IGNITE). We hypothesized that (1) oophorectomy prior to natural menopause would be associated with poorer cognitive performance, (2) timing and duration of birth control and menopausal hormone therapy would influence associations with cognitive performance, and (3) APOE4 carrier status would interact with oophorectomy and hormone therapy to influence cognitive performance. Methods In 461 post-menopausal females (M age = 69.6) we assessed oophorectomy and hormone therapy use to examine associations with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and factor-analytically derived composite scores for episodic memory, processing speed, working memory, executive function/attentional control, and visuospatial processing. Results Hypothesis (1) We did not observe associations between oophorectomy prior to natural menopause and poorer cognitive performance. However, hormone therapy use, started on average within 2 years of oophorectomy, was associated with better episodic memory (β = 0.106, p = 0.02), working memory (β = 0.120, p = 0.005), and visuospatial processing (β = 0.095, p = 0.03). Hypothesis (2) Birth control use was associated with better performance on the MoCA (β = 0.093, p = 0.04), working memory (β = 0.102, p = 0.02), and executive function/attentional control (β = 0.103, p = 0.02). However, duration and timing of birth control and menopausal hormone therapy were not associated with cognitive performance. Hypothesis (3) We did not observe significant interactions between APOE4 status and oophorectomy or hormone therapy in their associations with cognitive performance. Discussion Our results suggest exposure to estrogen during adulthood, specifically birth control and hormone therapy among women undergoing pre-menopausal oophorectomy, benefits cognitive function in older adulthood. Our comprehensive cognitive battery allowed us to examine cognitive function with a high degree of granularity. Future work should evaluate causal mechanisms of associations between lifetime estrogen exposure and later life cognitive function.

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)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207