Novel treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome, including in vitro maturation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) was first described by Stein and Leventhal (1935), although the overweight, hirsuit, amenorrheic phenotype they originally described, we now realize, probably reflects the severe end of the spectrum of the syndrome. Diagnosis is made primarily by ultrasound and endocrine changes, although there remains some controversy about the significance of ultrasound-only diagnosed PCOS when the clinical phenotype and endocrine pattern are normal (Polson et al . 1988, Abdel Gadir et al . 1992). The ultrasound features of PCOS are enlarged ovaries, thickened ovarian stroma, multiple peripheral cysts (2 –10 mm diameter), and an increased intraovarian stromal blood flow (Adams et al . 1986, Zaidi et al . 1995, Buckett et al . 1999). The endocrine pattern is characterized by raised serum luteinizing hormone (LH) levels in the early follicular phase or raised ratio of LH to follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and raised levels of testosterone and androstenedione, often associated with reduced levels of sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) (Hull 1987, DeVane et al . 1975). However, not all these features are present in every case of PCOS and it is clear that the syndrome, primarily anovulation associated with hyperandrogenemia, is an end-point of multiple causes and this is reflected in the unknown etiology of the syndrome. This heterogeneity has spawned many avenues for treatment of PCOS such as weight loss and lifestyle management, ovulation induction with varieties of agents, the treatment of hyperinsulinemia, the treatment of hyperandrogenemia, and the surgical treatment of PCOS. All these are described elsewhere in this volume.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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".