Systematic review and meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screening for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in antenatal care is inadequate, largely owing to the lack of clarity around whether PCOS is an independent risk factor for pregnancy complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis include 104 studies and 106,690 pregnancies in women with and without PCOS from inception until 13th July 2022. We report that women with PCOS are younger and have higher body mass index (BMI) around conception and have greater gestational weight gain. The odds of miscarriage, gestational diabetes mellitus, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia and cesarean section are higher in women with PCOS. The increased odds of adverse outcomes in PCOS remain significant when age and BMI are matched and when analyses are restricted to high-quality studies. This work informed the recommendations from the 2023 international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome, emphasizing that PCOS status should be captured in all women who are planning to, or have recently become pregnant to facilitate prevention of adverse outcomes and improve pregnancy outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it