Cohort validation pack

Million Women Study

The Million Women Study

Generated 6 Oct 2026, 10:36 · ID 82

AI inferred

Last verified: 17/04/2026

Instructions for reviewers

Review each field against your knowledge of this cohort. Mark Accurate if the value is right, Needs correction if it is wrong or inaccurate (add notes), Not sure if you cannot verify it, or Does not apply if the field is not relevant.
Evidence shown is from our source registry. Fields marked No source yet hold values we could not yet pin to a document — those were AI-inferred and need your input most. Fields marked Searched — not published are ones we looked for and could not find publicly; the note lists where we checked.
Your selections and notes are kept in this browser tab only (not sent to the database). Print or save as PDF when finished, then return it to the DIGIT team.

Overview

Total fields

Field-cited

Whole-record source only

AI-inferred, no source yet

Searched — not published

No value held

Needs review

Source coverage

Summary of how well fields in this pack are linked to evidence.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Field-level source coverage Optional	50 of 69 reviewable fields are cited to a source (72%) · 7 with no source yet · 12 searched — not published · 17 with no value held	Computed	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Field-level source coverageAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Identity and ownership

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Short name Required	Million Women Study	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Article title “Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Short nameAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Full name Required	The Million Women Study	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Article title “Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Full nameAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Managing organisation Recommended	University of Oxford — Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Author affiliations “Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 DIGIT managing_organisation string summarises coordinating unit at Oxford (CEU / NDPH).	Response for Managing organisationAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Primary site Recommended	No value held	Not published	primary_site_id=NULL: Coordinating centre is the Cancer Epidemiology Unit (University of Oxford / NDPH), not an Oxford Health NHS FT mental health BRC entry. DIGIT `sites` seed has no CEU/NDPH Richard Doll Building row; Oxford Health BRC (site 2) and OCTRU (site 43) are different organisational entities, so no clear primary_site_id match per population instructions.	Response for Primary siteAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Website URL Recommended	https://www.millionwomenstudy.org/	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Why was the cohort set up? “Further information, including the study protocol, copies of questionnaires, data collected, data access policy and list of publications can be found on the study website [www.millionwomenstudy.org].” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 https://www.millionwomenstudy.org/ used as canonical HTTPS URL.	Response for Website URLAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Catalogue of Mental Health Measures URL Recommended	https://www.cataloguementalhealth.ac.uk/MWS	Field-cited	Catalogue of Mental Health Measures https://www.cataloguementalhealth.ac.uk Section: Official sitemap study URL “https://www.cataloguementalhealth.ac.uk/MWS” Page: https://www.cataloguementalhealth.ac.uk/MWS	Response for Catalogue of Mental Health Measures URLAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Contact name Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: Correspondence block gives study email and postal address but no named individual contact required for DIGIT contact_name.	Response for Contact nameAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Contact email Recommended	millionwomenstudy@ndph.ox.ac.uk	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Correspondence “E-mail: millionwomenstudy@ndph.ox.ac.uk” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Contact emailAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Summary and status

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Description Required	UK-wide prospective cohort of around 1.3 million women recruited via NHS breast screening invitations (1996–2001) to study causes of common illnesses, initially focused on menopausal hormone therapy and cancer. Mental health relevance comes from repeated postal/online questionnaires (including wellbeing items), optional modules, and virtually complete long-term follow-up through linked NHS mortality, cancer registration, hospital admissions and (for subsets) primary care data.	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “The Million Women Study is a population-based prospective study of 1.3 million UK women, recruited in 1996-2001, when the women were aged 56 years on average.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Description expands with MH linkage context using questionnaire + NHS linkage sentences from the same profile.	Response for DescriptionAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Total N Required	1,319,475	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 1 “Number of women \| 1 319 475” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Total NAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Total N qualifier Recommended	approximate	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 1 caption “selected characteristics of the 1.32 million women at recruitment” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 total_n_qualifier=approximate (rounded headline 1.32M vs exact table 1,319,475).	Response for Total N qualifierAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Year established Recommended	1996	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Why was the cohort set up? “The Million Women Study started recruiting participants over 20 years ago, in 1996.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Year establishedAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Active cohort Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: How often have they been followed up? “The Million Women Study is an open-ended prospective study of women in England and Scotland.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Active cohortAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Ongoing recruitment Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “Between 1996 and 2001, the Million Women Study recruited about one in every four UK women born in 1935-1950” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE: baseline recruitment window closed after 2001.	Response for Ongoing recruitmentAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Refreshed cohort Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: How often have they been followed up? “Thus far, four re-survey postal questionnaires (at 3, 8, 12 and 15 years, on average, after recruitment) have been sent to all survivors” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Refreshed cohortAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Recontact success rate Recommended	63.50	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 3 “Number returning a study questionnaire \| 837 985” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Approximate 3-year re-survey response rate = 837985 / 1319475 ≈ 63.5% (not adjusted for deaths/emigrations before mail-out).	Response for Recontact success rateAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Retention rate Recommended	99.00	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “After almost 20 years follow-up, only 1% have been lost to follow-up” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 retention_rate≈99% interpreted as NHS linkage follow-up completeness (distinct from questionnaire wave response).	Response for Retention rateAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Published references Recommended	doi:10.1093/ije/dyy065	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Article citation “10.1093/ije/dyy065” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Published referencesAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Notes Recommended	Women-only cohort (breast screening age band at recruitment). Primary scientific portfolio is cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes; DIGIT entry emphasises questionnaire wellbeing items and linked NHS diagnostic data for mental health-related observational research. Mammography occurs in the screening programme but is not modelled as a research neuroimaging archive (has_imaging_data=FALSE).	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the study? “Blood samples are available only for a minority of participants, and were provided several years after recruitment.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Supplemented by DIGIT scope note on mammography vs imaging flag in cohort row.	Response for NotesAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

3D cohort mapping

Consent, characterisation, and data availability axes used on the cohort map.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Consent level (axis) Required	3 — Broad consent (recontactable for future studies)	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “Participants gave written consent for re-contact and for follow-up through screening clinic and other medical records.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Decision tree: identifiable participants YES; not S251-only access; re-contact consent YES; no evidence here of blanket prospective consent specifically for randomised interventional trials -> Level 3 (broad/recontact + records follow-up).	Response for Consent level (axis)AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Characterisation depth (axis) Required	3 — Multi-domain MH characterisation	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “At recruitment, and through the subsequent four re-survey questionnaires, information on about 1400 variables has been collected, about a range of sociodemographic, lifestyle and other personal factors.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Step 1 validated research questionnaires YES. Step 2 multiple domains beyond single MH screen YES (lifestyle, reproductive, past health, wellbeing items). Step 3 research-grade SCID/MINI plus active refresh for whole cohort NO -> Level 3.	Response for Characterisation depth (axis)AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Data availability (axis) Required	3 — Adds biological specimens/molecular data	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? / linkages “Since 2006, blood samples have been collected from about a 5% sample of women in the study for genetic and biochemical analyses” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 DERIVED: hasResearch=TRUE (questionnaires + linked records); hasBiological=TRUE (blood + genetics); hasAdvanced=FALSE -> level 3 per data-dictionary.md formula.	Response for Data availability (axis)AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Cohort map group (derived) Recommended	Group 2	Internal	Internal catalogue field	—	—
Population type Recommended	General population	Not published	DIGIT Cohort Portfolio Review — population type and engagement classification (Aug 2026) Classified general_population in the DIGIT cohort portfolio review (Aug 2026). Women recruited via NHS breast screening invitations — a general-population sample.	Response for Population typeAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Industry engagement status Recommended	Unknown	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: industry engagement status is an organisational property of the custodian and is not publicly documented; default 'unknown' pending a cohort-owner meeting.	Response for Industry engagement statusAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Parent cohort / programme Recommended	No value held	No source yet	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Parent cohort / programmeAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
TWiCs eligible Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “Participants gave written consent for re-contact and for follow-up through screening clinic and other medical records.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE: consent is broad follow-up/recontact + records; not Level 4 interventional/TWiCs eligibility per data-dictionary.	Response for TWiCs eligibleAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Data modalities

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Questionnaire / interview Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “At recruitment, and through the subsequent four re-survey questionnaires, information on about 1400 variables has been collected” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Questionnaire / interviewAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Cognitive testing Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “information on about 1400 variables has been collected, about a range of sociodemographic, lifestyle and other personal factors.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE: profile does not describe a harmonised archive of standardised computerised cognitive test batteries (CANTAB/CogState etc.) across the cohort.	Response for Cognitive testingAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Physical measures Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “height, weight, waist circumference, hip circumference and blood pressure were measured for about 4000 women to quantify measurement errors in self-reported data.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 TRUE: objective anthropometry/BP exists (validation substudy) alongside self-reported height/weight in Table 1.	Response for Physical measuresAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Biosamples Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “Since 2006, blood samples have been collected from about a 5% sample of women in the study for genetic and biochemical analyses” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for BiosamplesAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Genomic data Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “Since 2006, blood samples have been collected from about a 5% sample of women in the study for genetic and biochemical analyses” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 TRUE per data-dictionary: genetics analyses on collected blood subset.	Response for Genomic dataAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Omics Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “genetic and biochemical analyses” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE: biochemical analyses are referenced but separate proteomics/metabolomics/transcriptomics omics layers are not described as accessible cohort-wide omics archives distinct from genomics per data-dictionary Group B nuance.	Response for OmicsAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Imaging Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the study? “Blood samples are available only for a minority of participants, and were provided several years after recruitment.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE for DIGIT neuroimaging flag: profile discusses biosamples and NHS record linkages but does not describe a research brain/body imaging archive (e.g., structural MRI/PET) for the cohort; mammographic screening is part of NHS programme delivery rather than modelling as has_imaging_data here.	Response for ImagingAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Wearable / sensor Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “Information on a wide range of sociodemographic and behavioural factors has been collected at recruitment, at four subsequent re-surveys and by online questionnaire.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE: no wearable sensor data stream described.	Response for Wearable / sensorAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Digital phenotyping Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “by online questionnaire.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE: online questionnaires are active digital completion of surveys, not passive smartphone/sensor digital phenotyping per data-dictionary boundary.	Response for Digital phenotypingAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Linked health records Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “Follow-up through electronic record linkage to routinely collected NHS data on deaths, emigrations, cancer registrations and hospital admissions is virtually complete.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Linked health recordsAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Biosample types Recommended	blood	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “Since 2006, blood samples have been collected from about a 5% sample of women in the study for genetic and biochemical analyses” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Biosample typesAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Genotyping platform Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: Cohort profile states genetics from blood subset but does not name array/sequencing platform in reviewed sections.	Response for Genotyping platformAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Imaging modalities Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: has_imaging_data=FALSE; NULL array.	Response for Imaging modalitiesAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Mental health measures Recommended	Good or excellent self-rated health (re-survey item), Happy usually or most of the time (re-survey item)	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 3 “Good or excellent self-rated health” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Maps to first TEXT[] element on cohort row. Catalogue of Mental Health Measures — The Million Women Study (study page) https://www.cataloguementalhealth.ac.uk/?content=study&studyid=MWS Section: Table 3 “Happy usually or most of the time” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Second TEXT[] element on cohort row. Supplementary: Catalogue of Mental Health Measures study page title also identifies the cohort (local_file cohorts/million-women-study/cataloguementalhealth_ac_uk_mws_2026-04-17.html). source_id 182002 avoids UNIQUE(source_id,entity,field) collision with the other mental_health_measures row.	Response for Mental health measuresAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Data subcategories

Structured modality and subcategory rows used alongside the high-level data-type flags.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Data subcategories Recommended List key data subcategories using distinct rows for category markers, named questionnaire/interview instruments, biospecimen types, omics/genomics data products, imaging modalities, sensor streams, and linked-record types.	No value held	No source yet	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Data subcategoriesAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Field

Current value

Evidence

Source evidence

Response

Notes / correction

Data subcategories

Recommended

List key data subcategories using distinct rows for category markers, named questionnaire/interview instruments, biospecimen types, omics/genomics data products, imaging modalities, sensor streams, and linked-record types.

No value held

No source yet

No citation linked to this field yet.

AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply

Consent and use permissions

Specific use permissions separate from the 3D consent-level axis.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Consent and use permissions Recommended Confirm health/biomedical research use, industry/commercial consideration, non-commercial restrictions, governance modifiers, recontact, trial approach, biosample use, linkage, sharing, international transfer, and any Section 251/CAG support.	No value held	No source yet	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Consent and use permissionsAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Field

Current value

Evidence

Source evidence

Response

Notes / correction

Consent and use permissions

Recommended

Confirm health/biomedical research use, industry/commercial consideration, non-commercial restrictions, governance modifiers, recontact, trial approach, biosample use, linkage, sharing, international transfer, and any Section 251/CAG support.

No value held

No source yet

No citation linked to this field yet.

AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply

Access pathways

One or more routes by which researchers can request or analyse data.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Access pathways Recommended Confirm all data access pathways, including route, access level, TRE/SDE or download/API environment, DAC review, collaboration requirements, data sharing agreements, output checking, timelines, and fees.	No value held	No source yet	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Access pathwaysAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Field

Current value

Evidence

Source evidence

Response

Notes / correction

Access pathways

Recommended

Confirm all data access pathways, including route, access level, TRE/SDE or download/API environment, DAC review, collaboration requirements, data sharing agreements, output checking, timelines, and fees.

No value held

No source yet

No citation linked to this field yet.

AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply

Within-cohort coverage

Aggregate counts or percentages showing how broadly data, consent, or access characteristics apply within the cohort.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Within-cohort coverage metrics Recommended Provide numerator, denominator, unit type, numerator/denominator exactness qualifiers, denominator type, basis, date/release, original source wording, and whether each metric is marginal, joint, conditional, or a release total.	No value held	No source yet	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Within-cohort coverage metricsAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Field

Current value

Evidence

Source evidence

Response

Notes / correction

Within-cohort coverage metrics

Recommended

Provide numerator, denominator, unit type, numerator/denominator exactness qualifiers, denominator type, basis, date/release, original source wording, and whether each metric is marginal, joint, conditional, or a release total.

No value held

No source yet

No citation linked to this field yet.

AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply

Linkage and access

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
NHS linkage Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 2 caption “The Million Women Study: summary of electronic linkages to routinely collected NHS health and healthcare data” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 TRUE: HES hospital admissions and related NHS Digital/ISD flows are listed for the cohort.	Response for NHS linkageAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
GP linkage Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: How often have they been followed up? “For some study participants, additional electronic linked health data are available, for example for primary care consultations and prescriptions” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 TRUE: Table 2 additionally lists CPRD/Scotland primary care extracts for defined subsets.	Response for GP linkageAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Death registry linkage Recommended	Yes	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 2 (Deaths row) “Deaths \| England: ONS/NHS Digital \| Entire cohort \| Annual update \| ICD-10 cause of death” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065	Response for Death registry linkageAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Education linkage Recommended	No	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 2 caption “The Million Women Study: summary of electronic linkages to routinely collected NHS health and healthcare data” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 FALSE: Table 2 enumerates deaths, emigrations, cancers, hospital admissions, screening, COSD, and primary care subsets; no education/DfE administrative provider appears — scanned for an education linkage row and none is present.	Response for Education linkageAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Data access mechanism Recommended	direct_application	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “The Million Women Study uses a controlled data access model [http://www.millionwomenstudy.org/data_access].” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Maps to direct_application (researcher applies to data custodian) rather than open_access.	Response for Data access mechanismAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
TRE platform Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: Access is study-controlled applications; no named accredited TRE/SDE platform extracted from reviewed text.	Response for TRE platformAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Data dictionary URL Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: No separate public data-dictionary URL identified beyond study website questionnaire listings referenced generically in the cohort profile.	Response for Data dictionary URLAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Data access timeline (days) Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: No typical days-to-access figure extracted from data access webpage shell in this pass.	Response for Data access timeline (days)AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Data access cost Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: Cost terms not extracted from reviewed sources.	Response for Data access costAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Participant profile and dates

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Age distribution Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE for JSON age-band object: Table 1 gives median year of birth and mean recruitment age but no full age-band proportions suitable for the JSON schema without additional table extraction.	Response for Age distributionAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Sex distribution Recommended	female: 1	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “The Million Women Study recruited about one in every four UK women born in 1935-1950, i.e. in the eligible age range (50-64 years) at the time of recruitment.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Women-only cohort -> JSON encodes female proportion 1.0.	Response for Sex distributionAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Ethnicity distribution Recommended	white: 0.96; non_white: 0.04	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the study? “The great majority of study participants are of White ethnicity (96%)” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 percent_non_white on cohort row set to ~4%; JSON uses white 0.96 and non_white 0.04 as approximate complements.	Response for Ethnicity distributionAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Smoking status distribution Recommended	No value held	No source yet	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Smoking status distributionAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Median age Recommended	56.0	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 1 “Age at recruitment, years, mean (SD) \| 56 (5)” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 median_age field uses mean age at recruitment (56) as quick filter (median not separately tabulated in excerpt).	Response for Median ageAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Percent female Recommended	100.00	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “The Million Women Study recruited about one in every four UK women born in 1935-1950” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Women-only cohort -> 100%.	Response for Percent femaleAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Percent non-white Recommended	4.00	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the study? “The great majority of study participants are of White ethnicity (96%)” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Approximate 4% non-white complement.	Response for Percent non-whiteAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Geographic coverage Recommended	national	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “The Million Women Study is a population-based prospective study of 1.3 million UK women” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 national: UK-wide recruitment via NHS screening network (66 centres covering ~half of UK women in age band per paper, still a UK national resource).	Response for Geographic coverageAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Follow-up duration Recommended	>10 years	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Profile in a nutshell “After almost 20 years follow-up” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 HDRUK-style bucket >10 years.	Response for Follow-up durationAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Last data collection date Recommended	No value held	Not published	Searched — not published UNSOURCEABLE: Linkage and questionnaires continue over time; no single last_data_collection_date without custodian calendar.	Response for Last data collection dateAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Recruitment start date Recommended	1 Jan 1996	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “Between 1996 and 2001, the Million Women Study recruited about one in every four UK women born in 1935-1950” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 ISO date set to 1996-01-01 as conservative start anchor (month/day not specified).	Response for Recruitment start dateAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Recruitment end date Recommended	31 Dec 2001	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “Between 1996 and 2001, the Million Women Study recruited about one in every four UK women born in 1935-1950” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 ISO date set to 2001-12-31 as conservative end anchor.	Response for Recruitment end dateAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Diagnosis areas

Mental health diagnosis areas represented in this cohort.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Diagnosis area: Major depressive disorder Recommended Confirm this diagnosis area applies and estimated N if shown.	Major depressive disorder · Mood Disorders	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Who is in the cohort? “The recruitment questionnaire asked about sociodemographic, anthropometric, behavioural and reproductive factors, and also about women’s past health.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Depression/mood outcomes supported by self-reported past health plus ICD-coded hospital data; mutually exclusive estimated_n not published -> NULL.	Response for Diagnosis area: Major depressive disorderAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Diagnosis area: Generalised anxiety disorder Recommended Confirm this diagnosis area applies and estimated N if shown.	Generalised anxiety disorder · Anxiety Disorders	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: Table 3 “Happy usually or most of the time” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Anxiety-related symptom dimension captured in questionnaires; no published GAD case count -> NULL estimated_n.	Response for Diagnosis area: Generalised anxiety disorderAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes
Diagnosis area: Personality disorders (BPD) Recommended Confirm this diagnosis area applies and estimated N if shown.	Personality disorders (BPD) · Personality Disorders	Field-cited	Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text) https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Section: What has been measured? “Clinical outcomes recorded in routinely collected NHS data have been compared with those recorded in medical notes, primary care records or screening records for breast cancer, vascular disease, motor neurone disease and dementia.” Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065 Dementia explicitly named among validated NHS outcomes; estimated_n NULL.	Response for Diagnosis area: Personality disorders (BPD)AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Field

Current value

Evidence

Source evidence

Response

Notes / correction

Diagnosis area: Major depressive disorder

Recommended

Confirm this diagnosis area applies and estimated N if shown.

Major depressive disorder · Mood Disorders

Field-cited

Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text)
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065
Section: Who is in the cohort?
“The recruitment questionnaire asked about sociodemographic, anthropometric, behavioural and reproductive factors, and also about women’s past health.”
Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065
Depression/mood outcomes supported by self-reported past health plus ICD-coded hospital data; mutually exclusive estimated_n not published -> NULL.

AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply

Diagnosis area: Generalised anxiety disorder

Recommended

Confirm this diagnosis area applies and estimated N if shown.

Generalised anxiety disorder · Anxiety Disorders

Field-cited

Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text)
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065
Section: Table 3
“Happy usually or most of the time”
Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065
Anxiety-related symptom dimension captured in questionnaires; no published GAD case count -> NULL estimated_n.

AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply

Diagnosis area: Personality disorders (BPD)

Recommended

Confirm this diagnosis area applies and estimated N if shown.

Personality disorders (BPD) · Personality Disorders

Field-cited

Green et al. — Cohort Profile: the Million Women Study (Int J Epidemiol 2019; PMC full text)
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065
Section: What has been measured?
“Clinical outcomes recorded in routinely collected NHS data have been compared with those recorded in medical notes, primary care records or screening records for breast cancer, vascular disease, motor neurone disease and dementia.”
Page: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy065
Dementia explicitly named among validated NHS outcomes; estimated_n NULL.

AccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply

Linked sites

Sites contributing participants or data to this cohort.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Linked sites Optional	No value held	No source yet	No citation linked to this field yet.	Response for Linked sitesAccurateNeeds correctionNot sureDoes not apply No response selected	No notes

Verification metadata

Internal catalogue status — for reference only.

Field	Current value	Evidence	Source evidence	Response	Notes / correction
Verification status Recommended	ai_inferred	Internal	Internal catalogue field	—	—
Last verified Recommended	17 Apr 2026	Internal	Internal catalogue field	—	—
Data source Recommended	Populated Apr 2026 from millionwomenstudy.org (redirects to CEU Oxford study pages), Green et al. 2019 cohort profile (PMC6380310 / doi:10.1093/ije/dyy065), and Catalogue of Mental Health Measures study shell page (cataloguementalhealth.ac.uk studyid=MWS); scoring per docs/data-dictionary.md.	Internal	Internal catalogue field	—	—