Cognitive and brain health in women with early bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy: Implications for risk, resilience, and subjective cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Early life bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy (BSO) leads to immediate estradiol loss and increased risk of late‐life Alzheimer's disease (AD). We investigated risk and resilience (RandR) on the average of 5 years post BSO and their possible impact on subjective cognitive decline (SCD), and brain structure. METHODS A cohort in Canada ( n = 333) included women with and without BSO of whom some reported SCD. We used multiple factor analysis, logistic regression, and magnetic resonance imaging to assess RandR, odds of SCD, and differences in gray matter volume (GMV). RESULTS BSO was a risk for worse neuropsychological performance, a 2‐fold increase in the odds of SCD, and decreases in GMV in regions sensitive to estradiol, and important for mood, memory, and language. However, estradiol therapy (ET BSO ), and verbal IQ mitigated this risk. DISCUSSION Risk of SCD exists for younger women with BSO, which affects GMV. Importantly, ET BSO and verbal IQ may shift that risk. Highlights Oophorectomy in early middle age may be a risk for subjective cognitive decline. Oophorectomy is associated with less gray matter volume in the prefrontal cortex. Estradiol therapy and verbal IQ might be resilience factors mitigating such risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".