Economic Burden of Endometrial Cancer Associated With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder among reproductive-aged females, and women with PCOS are at increased risk for endometrial cancer (EndoCA), the most common gynecological malignancy. OBJECTIVE: Our study sought to assess the economic burden associated with EndoCA in PCOS. METHOD: Using PRISMA systematic review guidelines, we evaluated studies on EndoCA rates in patients with PCOS. Excluded studies were reviews and case reports, those with nonhuman subjects, without controls, without full text available, or reporting solely on other conditions. Selected studies were assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis used DerSimonian-Laird random effects model to assess pooled risk ratio (RR). Excess cost was assessed in US dollars (USD). RESULT: Of 98 studies screened, 9 were included. Pooled RR for EndoCA in PCOS was 3.46 (95% CI, 2.28-5.23), P ≤ .001. In the United States, prevalence of EndoCA in patients with PCOS in 2020 was 1.712%, compared with a baseline estimated prevalence in all women of 0.489%. The excess prevalence of EndoCA attributable to PCOS was 1.223%, approximately 98 348 affected women. A population attributable fraction of EndoCA for PCOS was 24.4%. Given estimated costs of EndoCA exceeding $1.9 billion (in 2023 USD), the economic burden of EndoCA attributable to PCOS exceeds $467 million/year. CONCLUSION: The excess annual US healthcare cost for EndoCA attributable to PCOS exceeds $467 million/year (2023 USD). Although a concerning morbidity of PCOS, it is notable that the economic burden of EndoCA attributable to the disorder represents only a small fraction of its total healthcare burden.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".