MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785067601 · doi:10.14740/jocmr3325w

The Role of C-Peptide as Marker of Cardiometabolic Risk in Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Controlled Study

2018· article· en· W2785067601 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sebastião Freitas de Medeiros, Laura Camila Antunes Angelo, Matheus Antônio Souto de Medeiros, Camila Regis Banhara, Bruna Barcelo Barbosa, Márcia Marly Winck Yamamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyC-peptideAnthropometryBody mass indexEndocrine systemEstrogenObesityHormoneInsulin resistanceInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The aim of this study was to examine the role of C-peptide as a biological marker of cardiometabolic risk in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods: This case-control study enrolled 385 PCOS patients and 240 normal cycling women. Anthropometric and clinical variables were taken at first visit. Fasting C-peptide, glucose, lipids, and hormone measurements were performed. Simple and multiple correlations between C-peptide and other variables associated with dysmetabolism and cardiovascular disease were examined. Results: C-peptide was well correlated with several anthropometric, metabolic, and endocrine parameters. In PCOS patients, stepwise multiple regression including C-peptide as the criterion variable and other predictors of cardiovascular disease risk provided a significant model in which the fasting C-peptide/glucose ratio, glucose, body weight, and free estrogen index (FEI) were retained (adjusted R 2 = 0.988, F = 7.161, P = 0.008). Conclusion: C-peptide levels alone or combined with C-peptide/glucose ratio, glucose, body weight, and FEI provided a significant model to identify PCOS patients with higher risk of future cardiometabolic diseases. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(3):260-267 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3325w

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 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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207