Follicle-Stimulating Hormone and Diabetes in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The co-occurrence of hormonal changes during menopause and the risk of cardio-metabolic disorders has been well studied. OBJECTIVE: We explored the association of circulating levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) with diabetes (DM) among postmenopausal women. METHOD: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Library up to September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Pooled estimates of mean differences in FSH levels were compared between postmenopausal women with and without DM. Correlations between FSH and fasting blood glucose (FBG)/insulin/homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) as well as pooled effect sizes with their 95% CIs for risk of DM were calculated. RESULTS: In this study, 14 articles, including 7878 postmenopausal women, met eligibility criteria. Most of the included studies had a low/moderate risk of bias. Women with DM had significantly lower FSH levels than those without DM (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.751 [95% CI, -1.129 to -.372], I2 = 82.46%, n = 1416). The pooled effect size for diabetes was 0.861 (95% CI, 0.740-1.001; I2 = 80.11%). The pooled risk estimate for DM based on the categorical FSH levels (high vs low) was (HR = 0.550; 95% CI, 0.356-0.850, I2 = 0). The significant inverse correlation was found between FSH levels and glycemic parameters: FBG (r= -0.285 [95% CI -0.441 to -0.113]; n = 1229), HOMA-IR (r = -0.241[-0.378 to -0.0924]; n = 1229) and insulin (r = -0.337 [-0.434 to -0.232]; n = 959)]. There were no statistically significant differences between estradiol levels among diabetic and nondiabetic groups; however, the SMD for luteinizing hormone was similar to that reported for FSH. CONCLUSION: The available data indicated an indirect association between FSH levels and glucose disturbances among postmenopausal women, notwithstanding heterogeneity among included studies, and the complexity of various influential factors needs to be considered. Further efforts should be made to clarify the underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".