Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

COMPARATIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION OF ESTROGENIC PREPARATIONS BY THE MENOPAUSAL AND AMENORRHEAL INDICES*†

KUPPERMAN, HERBERT S., BLATT, MEYER H. G., WIESBADER, HANS, FILLER, WILLIAM·1953·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

ESTROGENS for clinical use are usually standardized either by animal assay or by unit weight of crystalline material. Although such methods yield some information as to the expected comparative efficacy of these preparations in man they are inadequate for exact dosage relationships in clinical medicine. Hence, it is desirable that the relative activity of estrogens be based upon human ‘assay’ rather than biologic or chemical standardization procedures. The investigation of the clinical efficacy of different hormonal preparations, however, presents many difficulties and must, of necessity, entail large series of subjects to offset the inroads of biologic variation. Unfortunately, in the clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of steroid estrogens or their stilbene confreres, greater variability of response and less predictability of results occur than in animal assay procedures. In the latter assay methods one can adhere to a rigid selection of an adequate number of properly standardized subjects. The hor...

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jcem-13-6-688

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
KUPPERMAN, H. S., BLATT, M. H. G., WIESBADER, H., & FILLER, W.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
1953-06
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
688-703
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2007824063
Cited by
478
References
0
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.