Polycystic ovary syndrome and combined oral contraceptive use: a comparison of clinical practice in the United States to treatment guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The October 2010 ESHRE/ASRM polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) workshop concluded: (1) all combined oral contraceptives (COC) appear to have equal efficacy for PCOS, (2) addition of antiandrogens (spironolactone) to COCs has little treatment benefit and (3) metformin does not improve the live-birth rate and should only be used with impaired glucose tolerance. We compared these guidelines to current practice in the United States IMS claims-database. Time-series analyses were conducted by calendar-year in women with PCOS to evaluate prescribing preferences for COCs, concomitant use of spironolactone, and utilization of metformin. Trends were analyzed with linear regression. Our cohort included 1.6 million women taking COCs, 46 780 with a PCOS claim. Drospirenone utilization increased by 1.52% (SE:0.48%, p = 0.007) per-year more in women with PCOS (4.16%, SE:0.45%, p < 0.001) than in women without PCOS (2.64%, SE:0.17%, p < 0.001)). Concomitant use of drospirenone and spironolactone was common (14.26%) and increased by 0.75% (SE:0.15%, p = 0.002) per-year. Although plasma glucose tests were unavailable, women with PCOS were more likely to take metformin than have a diabetes claim (45.8% versus 15.2%, p < 0.001), indicating some women likely receive metformin solely for PCOS. Our data suggests further attention is needed to medication management of PCOS to bridge the gap between guidelines and practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".