Polycystic ovary syndrome in adults : a literature review and clinical practice guideline for the primary care nurse practitioner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a complex, multifaceted syndrome with multiple health implications and long-term health risks (Fauser et al., 2012). Women with PCOS require management and guidance from their primary care NP in collaboration with multiple specialists. The heterogeneity of the syndrome makes diagnosis, symptomatic treatment, and long-term management complex and individualized (Fauser et al., 2012). Long-term complications of PCOS include increased risk for insulin resistance (IR), cardiovascular disease (CVD), endometrial cancer, obesity, depression and anxiety, infertility, and various dermatological manifestations (Fauser et al., 2012). Nurse Practitioners (NP) are in a unique position, as primary care providers, to co-manage these women with various specialists. Currently in Canada, however, there are no primary care guidelines for the diagnosis and management of PCOS. This literature review was developed for the purpose of finding supporting evidence for the creation of a clinical practice guideline to assist NPs in the diagnosis and long-term management of adult women with PCOS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".