MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098091419 · doi:10.1177/1049732320971235

The Diagnostic Experiences of Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) in Ontario, Canada

2020· article· en· W3098091419 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kendall Soucie, Tanja Samardžić, Kristin Schramer, Cindy Ly, Rachel Katzman

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryMedicineThematic analysisPsychologyFamily medicinePediatricsGynecologyQualitative researchSociologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine syndrome that disproportionally affects women of childbearing age (~8% to 13% of women worldwide). If unmanaged, it can lead to chronic, lifelong complications. Over the past decade, improvements in diagnostic guidelines have not produced an expected reduction in the diagnostic timeframe. We examined the potential reasons underlying this diagnosis delay. Participants first constructed a diagnostic timeline and then charted and reflected on their diagnosis journeys. Through a reflexive thematic analysis, five themes represented the most common diagnostic trajectory: (a) dismissal of adolescents' early symptoms, (b) negative diagnostic encounters, (c) wariness of treatment options, (d) uncertainty for the future, and (e) self-education and advocacy. Our findings lead us to argue for education of physicians and allied professionals to strengthen patient-centered care delivery to women with a focus on building in training supports that include critically informed, social justice foundations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207