MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754260774 · doi:10.1111/cen.13477

The risk of metabolic syndrome in polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2017· review· en· W2754260774 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Endocrinology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioPolycystic ovaryMeta-analysisMedicineInternal medicineConfidence intervalMetabolic syndromePopulationMEDLINEOddsIncidence (geometry)ObesityInsulin resistanceBiologyEnvironmental healthLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common heterogeneous endocrine disorder associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide the most reliable estimate risk of MetS in women with PCOS, compared to healthy controls. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed [including Medline], Web of Science and Scopus databases for retrieving articles in English language on the prevalence/incidence and odds of MetS in women with PCOS compared to healthy controls. Mantel-Haenszel methods of meta-analysis were used to present results in terms of the pooled odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) using fixed/random-effects models with/without the publication bias correction, based on the various subgroups of age and study methods. Newcastle-Ottawa Scaling and The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool were used to evaluate the quality of studies included. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 2759 potentially relevant articles of which 44 articles were included for meta-analysis. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that the patients with PCOS regardless of age, BMI and recruitment sources of samples had higher odds of MetS compared to healthy controls (OR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0-3.2). However, adolescents with PCOS had an increased odds of MetS compared to healthy adolescent controls in population- and nonpopulation-based studies (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.8-11.9; OR 6.1, 95% CI 6.0- 6.1, respectively). However, the odds of MetS had no differences between adults with PCOS compared to healthy controls in population-based studies. These results were confirmed by the subgroup meta-analysis of some studies using age and BMI adjustment/matching. In addition, subgroup analysis based on diagnostic criteria of PCOS showed that the OR of MetS in PCOS using NIH criteria was higher than AES and Rotterdam criteria (Pooled Overall OR based on NIH criteria = 6.05, 95% CIL: 6.0-6.04). CONCLUSION: These findings provide some information on the real features and a broader view of this syndrome that also helps clarify conflicting results documented in the literature. Accordingly, in prevention strategies, routine screening for metabolic syndrome is suggested for adolescents 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it