Beyond hormone replacement: quality of life in women with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Little is known about how women with isolated GnRH deficiency cope with their condition. This study aimed to examine the health and informational needs of women with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH) and evaluate if their experiences differ from women with more common forms of infertility. Design Cross-sectional, multiple methods study using web-based data collection to reach dispersed rare disease patients. Methods A community-based participatory research framework was employed to develop an online survey and collect quantitative and qualitative data. Adult women diagnosed with CHH who had received at least one year of hormonal treatment completed the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale. Information on health care experiences, treatment outcomes and patient-reported challenges were also collected. Results Women ( n = 55) were often diagnosed late (20.7 ± 7.4, range: 10–48 years) and 16/20 patients receiving fertility treatment conceived. Poor adherence was frequently observed (34/55) while more than half (27/49) reported a gap in treatment exceeding a year. Low adherence correlated with depressive symptoms ( r = 0.3, P > 0.05). Negative illness perceptions were pervasive and 30/55 exhibited some depressive symptoms – significantly greater than women with common female factor infertility ( P < 0.01). Symptoms were underappreciated by providers as only 15 of 55 patients had discussions about psychological services. Women identified isolation, need for information and finding expert care as challenges to living with CHH. Conclusions Despite being a treatable form of female infertility, the presumable availability of treatment does not necessarily ensure adequate quality of life for women with isolated GnRH deficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".