New Comprehension on Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Sexual Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent condition characterized by manifestations that can influence self-image and potentially result in psychological distress; however, data from literature on sexual function (SF) in PCOS women are contradictory. We aimed to evaluate sexual dysfunction (SD) in PCOS women by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis, using the gold-standard assessment tool SD-diagnosis (Female Sexual Function Index:FSFI). Seven databases were analyzed until August-2023; study quality was assessed by risk of bias and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Our analysis encompassed 25 case-control studies (9933 women). PCOS group presented significantly lower scores in arousal (MD= -0.36 CI95%-0.60;-0.11), lubrication (MD= -0.52 CI95%-0.75;-0.28), orgasm (MD= -0.39 CI95%-0.57;-0.20), satisfaction (MD= -0.32 CI95%-0.50;-0.14) and pain subdomains (MD= -0.46 CI95%-0.75;-0.16), as in overall FSFI score (MD= -2.27 CI95%-3.23;-1.31). Overweight/obese (OW/O) patients exhibited significantly higher overall FSFI than OW/O controls (MD=1.98 CI95%0.68;3.27), particularly in lubrication (MD= -0.34), orgasm (MD= -0.26) and satisfaction (MD= -0.25) subdomains. These findings offer insights regarding SD in PCOS women and emphasize the need to incorporate SF assessment into multidisciplinary care. By this way, PCOS can be also considered a gateway diagnosis to other long-term consequences. Further research should focus on controlling variables, as ethnicity, culture, religion and economic disparities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".