MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400340553 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49752-6

Systematic review and meta-analysis of birth outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

2024· article· en· W4400340553 on OpenAlexaff
Mahnaz Bahri Khomami, Somayeh Hashemi, Soulmaz Shorakae, Cheryce L. Harrison, Terhi Piltonen, Daniela Romualdi, Chau Thien Tay, Aya Mousa, Eszter Vanky, Helena Teede

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryMedicineOffspringObstetricsPregnancyBody mass indexConfoundingBirth weightMeta-analysisLow birth weightOdds ratioSmall for gestational ageGynecologyObesityInternal medicineBiologyInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is unclear whether polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is an independent risk factor for adverse birth outcomes in the offspring of affected women. Here, we investigate the association of PCOS with birth outcomes in the offspring of women with PCOS overall and by potential confounders. This systematic review and meta-analysis included 73 studies and 92,881 offspring of women with and without PCOS from inception until 13 th July 2022. We report that mothers with PCOS are younger and have higher body mass index (BMI) around conception and have greater gestational weight gain. The odds of preterm birth, fetal growth restriction and low birth weight are higher and mean birthweight is lower in PCOS of which a lower mean birthweight and a higher small for gestational age are probably independent of BMI. 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 at pregnancy to identify risk and improve birth outcomes in the offspring.

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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations32
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207