MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972205592 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dez159

Fecundity among women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)—a population-based study

2019· article· en· W2972205592 on OpenAlexaff
Sofia Persson, Evangelia Elenis, Şahruh Türkmen, Michael S. Kramer, Eu‐Leong Yong, Inger Sundström Poromaa

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSvenska Läkaresällskapet
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryFecundityPopulationInfertilityMedicineChildbirthDemographyObstetricsFertilityGynecologyMenarchePregnancyBiologyInternal medicineObesityInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Does the long-term fecundity of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) differ from those without PCOS? SUMMARY ANSWER: Cumulative probability of childbirth is similar between women with and without PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PCOS is the main cause of anovulatory infertility in women after menarche. Previous studies indirectly suggest that fecundity in women with PCOS over the longer term may not be lower than in women without PCOS. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a population-based study using four linked Swedish national registries. A total of 45 395 women with PCOS and 217 049 non-PCOS women were included. Follow-up began at the age of 18 years and continued for a maximum of 26 years, from 1989 to the end of 2015. Childbirth was the main outcome, as identified from the Medical Birth Register. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All women born between 1971 and 1997 who were identified with a PCOS diagnosis in the Swedish Patient Registry between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2016 were included in the study population. Five controls per women with PCOS were randomly drawn from the Total Population Registry. The control women were born in the same year and living in the same municipality as the patient. The fecundity ratio (FR) was calculated by clustered Cox regression using a robust variance, adjusted for maternal birth period, country of birth and level of education. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The cumulative probability of childbirth was 80.2% (95% CI, 79.5-80.9%) in women with PCOS and 78.2% (95% CI, 77.9-78.5%) in those without PCOS. Adjusted FR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.80-0.82) for first childbirth and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.57-0.60) for first childbirth following a spontaneous pregnancy. The FR for second childbirth was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.80). Women with PCOS had more than one child less frequently than the comparison group. Within the PCOS group, early age at diagnosis, later birth year, Nordic country of origin and low educational level positively influenced the FR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Results are not adjusted for BMI, and time from intention to conceive to first childbirth could not be captured. Data on pregnancies, miscarriages or abortions and fertility treatment are unknown for women who did not give birth during the study period. Women with PCOS who did not seek medical assistance might have been incorrectly classified as not having the disease. Such misclassification would lead to an underestimation of the true association between PCOS and outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: While cumulative probability of childbirth is similar between groups, women with PCOS need longer time to achieve their first childbirth. Women with PCOS have a lower FR and give birth to fewer children per woman than women without PCOS. Early diagnosis of and information about PCOS may improve affected women's reproductive potential. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. Inger Sundström Poromaa has, over the past 3 years, received compensation as a consultant and lecturer for Bayer Schering Pharma, MSD, Gedeon Richter, Peptonics and Lundbeck A/S. The other authors declare no competing interests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations57
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207