Dietary and Physical Activity Behaviors in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome per the New International Evidence-Based Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifestyle modifications are recommended as first-line therapy in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, usual dietary and physical activity (PA) behaviors of women with PCOS remain uncertain, likely owing to controversy in diagnostic criteria. Our objective was to contrast the usual dietary and PA behaviors of women with PCOS (n = 80) diagnosed by the 2018 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS to that of controls (n = 44). Study outcomes were dietary intake, diet quality (Healthy Eating Index-2015), and PA (questionnaire, waist-worn accelerometers). Women with PCOS met the acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges for carbohydrate, fat, and protein, but did not meet the recommended dietary reference intakes for vitamin D (mean (95% confidence interval); 6 (5–7) μg/d), vitamin B9 (275 (252–298) μg/d), total fiber (24 (22–26) g/d), or sodium (4.0 (3.6–4.4) g/d). Women with PCOS also met the US recommendations for PA. No differences were detected in dietary intake, diet quality, or PA levels between groups (p ≥ 0.11). In conclusion, women with and without PCOS have comparable dietary and PA behaviors. A lack of unique targets for dietary or PA interventions supports the position of the new guideline to foster healthy lifestyle recommendations for the management of 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".