Women with PCOS have a heightened risk of cardiometabolic and cardiovascular diseases: statement from the Experts Group on Inositol in Basic and Clinical Research and PCOS (EGOI-PCOS) and Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has gradually increased, and the investigation of the causal factors influencing etiopathogenesis is attracting attention. Several studies have highlighted that patients with PCOS exhibit an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with healthy people, and these risks include the occurrence of myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, and stroke. This correlation becomes particularly important when PCOS is diagnosed and consequently a specific treatment is recommended. Of note, women with PCOS may exhibit different pathological features even if quite often they are considered as a sole unique group of patients. Interestingly, the rate of CVD occurrence is differently linked to PCOS phenotypes. Data from literature demonstrate that CVD risks are strongly associated with those comorbidities frequently observed in PCOS, mainly metabolic alterations such as hypertension, abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and atherosclerosis, that predispose individuals to CVD and type 2 diabetes. Women presenting PCOS, particularly those with a hyperandrogenic pattern, seem more prone to develop CVD with respect to other PCOS patients. This may be related to genetic factors, dyslipidemia, and hypertension combined with excessive androgen, which may explain the increased risk factor of CVD in patients with PCOS. On these premises, it becomes important to implement the therapeutic rationale and the risk assessment before treatment prescription and to encourage meticulous patient observation during medical examinations. This aspect becomes crucial particularly in adolescent patients, as in many cases, PCOS may be predictive of CVD occurrence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".