Classification of premenstrual disorders as proposed by the International Society for Premenstrual Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Premenstrual disorders have been recognized as affecting innumerable women for decades but unlike most other medical conditions universally accepted criteria for definition and diagnosis are not established. Although premenstrual syndrome (PMS) occurs throughout reproductive life, there are some women who become particularly troubled. Those approaching the menopause may also have a mixture of PMS and menopause symptoms, not to mention heavy periods. Furthermore, some of the symptoms are similar in nature and so it is a challenge to identify which set of symptoms belongs to which spectrum. This is an area that has not been explored well. Various classifications have been proposed over the last few decades. A further effort towards the classification was made by an international multidisciplinary group of experts established as the International Society for Premenstrual Disorders (ISPMD) in Montreal in September 2008. Their deliberations resulted in a unified diagnosis, classification of premenstrual disorders (PMD) along with their quantification and guidelines on clinical trial design. This classification of PMS is far more comprehensive and inclusive than previous attempts. PMD in the ISPMD Montreal consensus are divided into two categories: Core and Variant PMD. Core PMD are typical, pure or reference disorders associated with spontaneous ovulatory menstrual cycles while Variant PMD exist where more complex features are present. Further, the consensus group considered that PMD may be subdivided into three subgroups predominantly physical, predominantly psychological and mixed. Variant PMD encompass primarily four different types; premenstrual exacerbation, PMD with anovulatory ovarian activity, PMD with absent menstruation and progestogen-induced PMD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".