MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Premature Ovarian Insufficiency, Early Menopause and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cohort Study

2025· preprint· en· W4409637679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Rodrigues, Eliana Aguiar Petri Nahás, Márcia Mendonça Carneiro, Lucia Porcino, Stefano Palomba

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremature ovarian insufficiencyMenopauseCognitive impairmentPremature ovarian failureMedicineCohortPremature MenopauseCohort studyPediatricsInternal medicineObstetricsDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Natural menopause (NP) typically occurs around the age of 50. In contrast, premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and early menopause (EM) refer to the loss of normal ovarian function before the ages of 40 and 45, respectively. Surgical menopause, resulting from bilateral oophorectomy, leads to an abrupt hormonal decline. Emerging evidence suggests that early loss of ovarian function, whether natural or surgical, may impact cognitive performance. Objective: This study aimed to clarify the effect of different types of menopauses, POI and EM (spontaneous or surgical) on the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Study Design: This was an observational, cross-sectional, analytical study conducted in women’s health outpatient clinics at two university centers in Brazil. Methods: Socio-demographic factors, clinical histories, anthropometric measurements, and family histories were studied in a large population of postmenopausal women. MCI and postmenopausal symptoms were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test and the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS), respectively. Data were analyzed according to the type of menopause (spontaneous or surgical) and age at menopause (POI, EM and NM) using logistic regression models. Results: A total of 519 women were studied. No significant differences were observed between the groups in the different domains and the total score, but a cognitive deficit above 85% was found in the three groups. A higher risk of MCI was observed in women with bilateral oophorectomy [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 7.19, P=0.03], use of sleep inducers (aOR 3.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.92, P< 0.0001), and higher body mass index (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10, P=0.031). In contrast, more years of education were associated with a lower risk of cognitive impairment (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, P=0.028). Current or previous use of hormone therapy, parity, smoking, comorbidities, and use of anxiolytics or antidepressants were not significantly associated with MoCA scores. Conclusion: POI and EM are not associated with higher MCI risk. Bilateral oophorectomy, use of sleep inducers, and higher BMI are associated with an increased risk of MCI in postmenopausal women, independently of age or time since menopause. Conversely, higher educational attainment appears to be a protective factor. These results highlight the importance of identifying women at greater risk of cognitive decline based on menopausal type and modifiable factors. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify causality and guide personalized management strategies.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→