MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017264676 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000019644

The effect of exercise as an intervention for women with polycystic ovary syndrome

2020· review· en· W3017264676 on OpenAlex
Ísis Kelly dos Santos, Maureen C. Ashe, Ricardo Ney Cobucci, Gustavo Mafaldo Soares, Técia Maria de Oliveira Maranhão, Paulo Moreira Silva Dantas

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicinePolycystic ovaryRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEMeta-analysisPsychological interventionAerobic exerciseMenstrual cyclePhysical therapyGynecologyInsulin resistanceInternal medicineObesityNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects reproductive-aged women and is associated with increased prevalence of serious clinical problems including: reproductive implications, metabolic dysfunction, and cardiovascular risk. Physical activity offers several health benefits for women with PCOS. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the effect of different types of exercise on reproductive function and body composition for women with PCOS. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) following recommended review methods. We searched 6 databases: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Embase; MEDLINE (via Ovid); PubMed; Sport Discus; and Web of Science; and we developed search strategies using a combination of Medical Subject Headings terms and text words related to exercise interventions for women with PCOS. There was no restriction on language or publication year. The search was conducted on April 16, 2019 and updated on November 15, 2019. Two authors independently screened citations, determined risk of bias and quality of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We conducted meta-analyses following recommended guidelines, and report results using standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 533) were included in this review. Studies tested the following interventions: aerobic, resistance, and combined (aerobic/resistance) training programs. Most studies were small (average 32, range 15-124 participants), and of relatively short duration (8-32 weeks). There was high heterogeneity for outcomes of reproductive function (menstrual cycle, ovulation, and fertility). We noted low certainty evidence for little to no effect of exercise on reproductive hormones and moderate certainty evidence that aerobic exercise reduced body mass index (BMI) in women with PCOS: BMI SMD -0.35, 95% confidence interval -0.56 to -0.14, P = .001. CONCLUSION: For women with PCOS, evidence is limited to discern the effect of exercise on major health outcomes (e.g., reproductive function). There is moderate certainty evidence that aerobic exercise alone is beneficial for reducing BMI in women with PCOS. Future studies should be conducted with longer duration, larger sample sizes, and should provide detailed information on menstrual cycle and fertility outcomes.PROSPERO Systematic review registration: 2017 CRD42017058869.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.302 · 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