Pelvic floor parameters in women with gynecological endocrinopathies: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no pooled information about pelvic floor parameters (muscle assessment, disorders) of women with gynecologicaL endocrinopathies (eg. polycystic ovary syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, premature ovarian insufficiency). Given that, a systematic review was performed on the Pubmed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Scielo and PEDro databases regarding the main gynecological endocrinopathies [polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and hyperprolactinemia (HPL)] since their inception to April 2020. Data quality assessment was made by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) adapted for cross-sectional studies. A total of 4,272 results were retrieved from all databases. After excluding duplicate results and screening by title and abstract, nine studies were selected for quantitative analysis. Seven studies were performed with women with PCOS and two studies with POI. Women with PCOS presented a higher prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) among obese women, a higher thickness of the levator ani muscle, and higher levels of muscle activity measured by surface electromyograph when compared to the control women. Regarding POI, there was no association with UI, FI, and POP. NOS found that the quality assessment for these selected studies ranged from 5 to 8. We concluded that higher pelvic muscle activity and volume were found in women with PCOS, with further studies needed to confirm this data. Literature was scant about POI, CAH, and HPL.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".