Prise de décision en matière d'hormonothérapie de remplacement. Essai clinique randomisé.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a decision-making aid with an information document from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) with regard to decisions about hormone replacement therapy (HRT). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Quebec city region. PARTICIPANTS: Menopausal Francophone women 45 to 69 years old. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were given a manual and an audiocassette describing a six-step approach to making a decision about HRT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Amount of anxiety over the decision (main outcome), general knowledge of the risks and benefits of HRT, personal expectations and values concerning these risks and benefits, and women's views on HRT. RESULTS: Anxiety levels were significantly reduced in both groups, but the difference between the effectiveness of the two interventions was not significant (P = .77). Percentages of women whose general knowledge increased and of women with realistic expectations were significantly higher in the experimental group (P < .003 and P < .0001, respectively). Congruence between personal values and decisions about HRT increased significantly more in the experimental group (P < or = .003). CONCLUSION: The six-step approach to decision making was more helpful than the SOGC's information document in increasing subjects' knowledge of the risks and benefits of HRT, in creating more realistic expectations of HRT, and in increasing the congruence between subjects' personal values and their decisions on HRT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".