Editorial: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): Mechanism and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorial on the Research Topic Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): Mechanism and managementPolycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder in women of reproductive age with a reported prevalence ranging from 6% to 20% (1).In 2004, the economic impact of evaluating and providing care to persons with PCOS during the reproductive life span is $4.36 billion in the United States alone, even regardless of the cost of the increased risk of obstetrical and metabolic complications (2).The syndrome has severely impaired reproductive health and has already been a heavy health care-related economic burden.Unfortunately, our knowledge of PCOS remains limited.This Research Topic addresses a more nuanced picture of the pathophysiology and clinical investigations, as well as the management of PCOS.PCOS has long been accepted as the major cause of anovulatory infertility and hirsutism, with an increased risk of developing metabolic abnormalities, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obstetrical complications, mood disorders, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and endometrial and ovarian cancer (3).The condition is typified by androgen excess, ovulatory dysfunction, and polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM), among which excessive androgen production by the ovaries is the key feature.Considering the heterogeneous presentation of PCOS, not all patients will have all three of these abnormalities, thus considerable debate exists regarding the criteria for the definition and the diagnosis of PCOS.In the diagnostic development of PCOS, three major sets of criteria have been accepted: (i) the criteria of the NIH and National Institute of Child Health and Human Disease (NIH-NICHD) in 1992 requires both hyperandrogenemia and ovulatory dysfunction; (ii) the Rotterdam
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.017 |
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".