Reproductive hormone characteristics of obese Chinese patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this analysis is to assess the effect of obesity on reproductive hormones in Chineses patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Seven databases were searched. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessed the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. The means and standard deviations of the outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 23 studies involving 4554 patients with PCOS were included. No significant differences in follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (p = 0.51), estradiol (E2) (p = 0.48), and prolactin (PRL) (p = 0.46) levels were found between obese and nonobese PCOS patients. However, obese PCOS patients had significantly lower levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) (p < 0.00001), LH/FSH (p = 0.001), progesterone (P) (p = 0.009), and anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) (p = 0.001). Conversely, they exhibited significantly higher testosterone (T) (p = 0.001) levels. Obese PCOS patients exhibited lower levels of LH, LH/FSH, P, and AMH, but higher T levels compared to nonobese PCOS patients, and no significant difference were observed in FSH, E2, and PRL levels in PCOS patients with and without obesity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".