Systematic review and meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".