MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146291700 · doi:10.3389/fendo.2021.660381

PCOS and Inositols: Controversial Results and Necessary Clarifications. Basic Differences Between D-Chiro and Myo-Inositol

2021· article· en· W3146291700 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Giovanni Monastra, Ivana Vučenik, Abdel Halim Harrath, Saleh Alwasel, Zdravko Kamenov, Antonio Simone Laganà, Noemi Monti, Valeria Fedeli, Mariano Bizzarri

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Endocrinology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Population and Public HealthKing Saud University
KeywordsInositolFront (military)GynecologyPolitical scienceMedicineEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A NEW APPROACHES IN PCOS TREATMENTMyo-Inositol (myo-Ins) and its phosphate derivatives-including inositol phosphates (InsPs), inositol pyrophosphates (IPPs) and phosphatidyl-inositol phosphate (PtdIns)-are credited to act as second messengers, which accumulate rapidly and transiently in response to external or endocrine signals, a phenomenon that allows signaling to be discrete and regulated (1, 2).Noticeably, inositol is involved in the transduction of several endocrine signals, including insulin (3, 4), thyroid hormones (5), gonadotropins (6), lipids with hormone-like activity (as prostaglandins) (7), and many other endocrine systems (8).Namely, in the last decade, a growing body of clinical and experimental research provided robust evidence about the efficiency of inositol in reversing a few clinical, metabolic, and endocrine features of the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS).Myo-inositol, alone or in combination with its isomer D-Chiro-Inositol (D-Chiro-Ins), showed to exert a variable-albeit significant-effect in improving both symptoms and outcome in PCOS patients (9).Experimental and pilot clinical studies pointed out that a combination of both isomers could provide a reliable rationale for establishing a proper treatment strategy, as first suggested by Beemster's seminal study (10,11).However, the proper formula-i.e., the respective percentage of myo-Ins and D-Chiro-Ins-is still a matter of debate.In several cases, no conclusive insights can be obtained from clinical trials based on unclear rational design, limited number of recruited patients and variable formula composition and dosage(s).First, it is improper to compare clinical results from studies in which commercial nutraceutical formulas involve a wide range of concentrations (Table 1), with the myo-Ins/D-Chiro-Ins ratio varying implausibly from 0.4:1 to 104:1.Current commercial preparations also contain D-Chiro-Ins alone at concentrations reaching 600 mg that can be administered once or twice a day.Therefore, the daily dose of D-chiro-Ins, alone

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EndocrinologySame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207