Use of medroxyprogesterone acetate and risk of meningiomas: a comparative safety study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medroxyprogesteroneacetate (MPA), a widely used hormonal contraceptive, has been associated with increased risk of meningiomas. However, the risk of meningiomas associated with MPA compared to oral contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol-levonorgestrel (EE-LNG) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the relative risk of meningiomas in women using MPA versus EE-LNG. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted using the PharMetrics Plus database (2006-2020). The cohort included new users of MPA and EE-LNG. Incident meningioma cases were matched to controls based on age and calendar time. Conditional logistic regression was used to account for confounders, including prior radiotherapy, hormonal contraceptive use, and obesity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of meningiomas in MPA users compared to EE-LNG users. RESULTS: Among women using MPA for more than one year, the adjusted IRR for meningiomas was 3.55 (95% CI: 1.85-6.85), indicating a significantly higher risk compared to EE-LNG users. CONCLUSIONS: MPAuse is linked to a substantially increased risk of meningiomas, underscoring the importance of assessing its long-term use. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings and guide clinical practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".