Variation among human populations in endometriosis and PCOS A test of the inverse comorbidity model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evidence linking endometriosis to low prenatal testosterone, and evidence that risk of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is associated with high prenatal testosterone, have motivated the hypothesis that endometriosis and PCOS exhibit inverse comorbidity. The inverse comorbidity hypothesis predicts that populations exhibiting higher prevalence of one disorder should show lower prevalence of the other. To test this prediction, data were compiled from the literature on the prevalence of endometriosis and PCOS, levels of serum testosterone in women during pregnancy and digit ratios as indicators of prenatal testosterone, in relation to variation in inferred or observed population ancestries. Published studies indicate that rates of endometriosis are highest in women from Asian populations, intermediate in women from European populations and lowest in women from African populations (i.e. with inferred or observed African ancestry); by contrast, rates of PCOS show evidence of being lowest in Asian women, intermediate in Europeans and highest in individuals from African populations. Women from African populations also show higher serum testosterone during pregnancy (which may increase PCOS risk, and decrease endometriosis risk, in daughters), and higher prenatal testosterone (as indicated by digit ratios), than European women. These results are subject to caveats involving ascertainment biases, socioeconomic, cultural and historical effects on diagnoses, data quality, uncertainties regarding the genetic and environmental bases of population differences and population variation in the causes and symptoms of PCOS and endometriosis. Despite such reservations, the findings provide convergent, preliminary support for the inverse comorbidity model, and they should motivate further tests of its predictions. Lay Summary: Given that endometriosis risk and risk of polycystic ovary syndrome show evidence of having genetically, developmentally, and physiologically opposite causes, they should also show opposite patterns of prevalence within populations: where one is more common, the other should be more rare. This hypothesis is supported by data from studies of variation among populations in rates of endometriosis and PCOS and studies of variation among populations in levels of prenatal testosterone, which mediaterisks of both conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".