Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive function in late versus early postmenopausal stage

Elsabagh, Sarah, Hartley, David E., File, Sandra E.·2007·Maturitas
DOI 10.1016/j.maturitas.2006.06.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives There are relatively few studies of cognitive performance in the first few postmenopausal years and insufficient data on whether there is differential decline in different cognitive abilities. The aim of the present analysis was to determine the nature of cognitive decline across a range of functions within a period of 5 years from early to late postmenopausal stage. Methods In a cross-sectional study, 189 postmenopausal women, who had experienced a natural menopause, were not taking hormonal medication and had not done so in the previous 12 months, were divided according to their postmenopausal stage into early (stage +1, 5 years since the last menstrual period, aged 59.8+/-0.4 years, n=109) postmenopausal stages. Participants completed a comprehensive battery of tests measuring attention, episodic and semantic memory, planning and mental flexibility. Participants also completed self-ratings of mood, sleepiness and menopausal symptoms. Results There were no differences between the groups in their performance in tests of attention, verbal fluency or memory. However, in the two tests of executive function (planning and mental flexibility) the women in the late postmenopausal stage performed significantly worse than the women in the early postmenopausal stage. These differences remained significant when effects of age and IQ were taken into account by analyses of covariance. There were no differences between the groups in their ratings of mood or of habitual sleepine…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.maturitas.2006.06.007

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 40

Metadata

Authors
Elsabagh, S., Hartley, D. E., & File, S. E.
Venue
Maturitas
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
84-93
ISSN
0378-5122
DOI
10.1016/j.maturitas.2006.06.007
Cited by
40
References
52
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
Dunhill Medical Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.