Stress, Depression, Sexual Function, and Alexithymia in Infertile Females with and without Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Case-Control Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infertile females experience some types of distress such as social stress, depression, and sexual dysfunction that may be exacerbated by polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The current study aimed at comparing psychological profile of infertile females with PCOS with that of women without PCOS with respect to four domains: infertility stress, depression, sexual dysfunction, and alexithymia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current case-control study was conducted on 240 infertile females (120 with PCOS and 120 without PCOS) in Fatemeh Azahra Infertility and Reproductive Health Research Center (Babol, Iran) from 2016 to 2017. The following questionnaires were used to collect data: the fertility problem inventory (FPI), the female sexual function index (FSFI), the Beck depression inventory-II (BDI-II), and the Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20). RESULTS: Females with PCOS had higher FPI total scores than the ones without PCOS (120.68 ± 29.42 vs. 112.83 ± 30.94). Of the subscales of infertility stress, the mean scores of social stress and rejection of a future life without a child were higher in females with PCOS than the ones without PCOS (P<0.05). Also, the mean total scores of alexithymia symptoms (TAS-20) in females with PCOS were significantly higher than those of the ones without PCOS (59.83 ± 11.36 vs. 55.69 ± 11.52). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the mean scores of depression symptoms and sexual function. CONCLUSION: Infertile females with PCOS experienced higher levels of infertility stress and inability to distinguish and describe their feelings compared with the ones without PCOS. It is suggested that infertility care providers should provide more psychosocial support for infertile females 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".