MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153951232 · doi:10.1111/obr.13255

Obesity, but not hyperandrogenism or insulin resistance, predicts skeletal muscle mass in reproductive‐aged women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 45 observational studies

2021· review· en· W3153951232 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Kazemi, Roger A. Pierson, Stephen Parry, Mojtaba Kaviani, Philip D. Chilibeck

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryHyperandrogenismInsulin resistanceInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineLean body massBody mass indexMeta-analysisObesityConfidence intervalBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) exhibit reduced muscle insulin‐mediated glucose uptake, potentially attributed to altered muscle mass; however, this is inconclusive. Altered muscle mass may aggravate PCOS complications. Our systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated whether PCOS alters muscle mass and function. Databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched through September 2, 2020, for studies documenting skeletal muscle mass (lean tissue mass) and function (strength) in PCOS and control groups. The primary outcome was total lean body mass (LBM) or fat‐free mass (FFM). Data were pooled by random‐effects models and expressed as mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Forty‐five studies ( n = 3676 participants) were eligible. Women with PCOS had increased total (0.83 [0.08,1.58] kg; p = 0.03; I 2 = 72.0%) yet comparable trunk (0.84 [−0.37,2.05] kg; p = 0.15; I 2 = 73.0%) LBM or FFM versus controls. Results of meta‐regression analyses showed no associations between mean differences between groups in total testosterone or homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance and total or trunk LBM or FFM (All: p ≥ 0.75). Mean differences in body mass index (BMI) were associated with total (0.65 [0.23,1.06] kg; p < 0.01; I 2 = 56.9%) and trunk (0.56 [0.11,1.01] kg; p = 0.02; I 2 = 42.8%) LBM or FFM. The PCOS subgroup with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 had greater total LBM or FFM versus controls (1.58 [0.82,2.34] kg; p < 0.01; I 2 = 64.0%) unlike the PCOS subgroup with BMI < 25 kg/m 2 (−0.45 [−1.94,1.05] kg; p = 0.53; I 2 = 69.5%). Appendicular lean mass and muscle strength data were contradictory and described narratively, as meta‐analyses were impossible. Women with PCOS have higher total and trunk lean tissue mass attributed to overweight/obesity, unlike hyperandrogenism or insulin resistance.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207