Relationship between endometriosis and mental health. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The chronic gynecological condition endometriosis affects about 10 percent of reproductive aged women and imposes a heavy physical and psychological burden. The impact of pain and infertility is well documented, but the link between endometriosis and mental health (depressive and anxiety), in particular, is not well studied. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we synthesize evidence on the association between endometriosis and mental health outcomes, specifically anxiety and depression.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched comprehensively to identify studies that have reported the association of endometriosis and mental health outcomes. Nine studies were included after applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria from 1,632 articles screened. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality and random effects meta-analyses were performed using R. Relative risk (RR) values for anxiety and depression among women with endometriosis were pooled as the primary outcomes. Results: values of 0.6032 for anxiety and 0.794 for depression, indicating considerable between-study variability. These findings underscore the heightened mental health burden in women with endometriosis. Conclusions: Endometriosis patients are more likely to develop anxiety and depressive symptoms due to pain and diagnostic evaluation and related psychosocial factors. This study stresses the importance of integrated care, which involves screening and treatment for mental health problems in addition to conventional medical care. Future work should aim to reduce heterogeneity and examine potential pathways through which these relationships exist in order to develop specific prevention strategies.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".