The Canadian Journal of Diagnosis / December 200460 Women’s Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are those who believemenstrual suppression is unnatural. However, studies have proven that suppression of ovulation and menses by hor-mones, either combined oral contraceptives (COC) or prog-esterone-only contraception, reduces the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer by at least 40 % after one year of use.1 How does it work? After the 21 days of active tablets, during the seven-day hormone-free interval (HFI) COC regimen, the hypothalam-ic pituitary ovarian (HPO) axis recovers, with ovarian follicle growth by the beginning of the next pill cycle. Pill omissions adjacent to the HFI are associat-ed with escape ovulation and contraceptive failure. Extending the number of days of active COC may increase contraceptive efficacy, as there would be less opportu-nity to omit pills adjacent to the HFI. Decreasing the HFI to three or four days could also poten-tially increase contraceptive efficacy by reducing HPO recovery. The lower the COC dose, the faster the recovery of the HPO axis. In Europe and the U.S., use of low-dose COCs—containing as low as 15 µg of ethinyl estra-diol—has lead to new contra-ceptive regimens. These regi-mens extend the number of active pills and reduce the num-ber of hormone-free days to diminish hypothalamic recov-ery associated with the tradi-tional seven-day HFI. Though physicians have pro-duced menstrual suppression in the past, most have not done so for social reasons. Using prog-esterone-only contraception, along with continuous COC, danazol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antago-nists/agonists, suppresses menses in women who have endometriosis, menorrhagia, menstrual migraines and other symptoms associated with the HFI.2 Zena’s case
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.382 | 0.086 |
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".