MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391585038 · doi:10.31579/2640-1045/140

Prevalence of Psychological Disorders in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

2023· article· en· W4391585038 on OpenAlexaff
Mohadetheh Moulana

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrinology and Disorders · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryMedicineGynecologyOvaryPsychologyClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This study is aimed to assess, for the first time the prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and associated psychological disorders among women at reproductive age from a state in southeastern US. Results: Collected data from 166,748 females (19-45 years) showed 1.4% (95% CI: 1.32-1.44) prevalence of PCOS in women seen in UMMC clinics during the period of study. Almost 51% of patients with PCOS suffered from one or more psychological disorders; anxiety 21% (95% CI: 19.3-22.6), depression 20% (95% CI: 18.9-22.1), ADHD 3.2% (95% CI: 2.6-4.0), bipolar disorder 2.5% (95% CI: 1.9-3.2). In addition, prevalence values suggest a positive correlation between obesity, anxiety, and depression in PCOS Patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.378 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrinology and DisordersSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207