MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415449864 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaf149.1910

MON-178 Feasibility of Continuous Glucose Monitor Use and Glucose Pattern Analysis in Females With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

2025· article· en· W4415449864 on OpenAlexaff
Isha Safdar, Robyn Vettese, Heather Hinz, Heidi Vanden Brink, Erin A. Brennand, Sandra M. Dumanski, Jamie L. Benham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryHyperandrogenismInsulin resistanceDiabetes mellitusContinuous glucose monitoringProspective cohort studyBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringBlood sugar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disclosure: I. Safdar: None. R. Vettese: None. H. Hinz: None. H. Vanden Brink: None. E.A. Brennand: None. S.M. Dumanski: None. J.L. Benham: None. Background: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), characterized by hyperandrogenism, irregular menstrual cycles and polycystic ovarian morphology, affects >10% of females and has devastating impacts on metabolic, reproductive, and psychological health. Insulin resistance and dysglycemia are central metabolic disturbances involved in PCOS and contribute to an increased risk of early development of type 2 diabetes. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are readily available glucose sensors used in diabetes management. However, it is not known if CGM can be used in the management of people without diabetes at an increased risk for dysglycemia, including individuals living with PCOS. Objective:To evaluate the feasibility of using CGM and provide preliminary estimates of blood glucose (BG) patterns among individuals living with PCOS. Methods:We performed a pilot prospective cohort study of individuals with PCOS aged 18-45 years without a diagnosis of diabetes who did not use medication that could affect blood sugar or hormone levels. Participants underwent phenotyping to confirm PCOS diagnosis per Rotterdam criteria. Participants wore a FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM for 42 days, which recorded interstitial BG every 15 minutes. Feasibility outcomes were the recruitment rate, participant attrition, proportion of missing data from CGM, and participant satisfaction with CGM use. Secondary analysis examined glucose parameters: mean overall BG, overnight BG (23:00-07:00), daytime BG (07:01-22:59), and percent time in range (70-180 mg/dL), below range (<70 mg/dL), and above range (>180 mg/dL). BG parameters were stratified by biochemical hyperandrogenism status (elevated vs not) and compared using two-sided two-sample unequal-variance t-tests. Results:Out of 284 individuals screened, 35 met inclusion criteria and were enrolled, 30 completed the study, 4 (11.4%) withdrew, and 1 (2.9%) did not complete blood work. Reasons for withdrawal were declining to continue (n=2) and CGM adhesion difficulties (n=2). The mean recruitment rate was 5 participants/month. The median proportion of missing CGM data was 7.4% (IQR: 26.1%), with 4 participants (11%) having no missing data. Most participants (n=21, 60%) indicated they would use a CGM again if provided. As a result of their participation, two participants were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Mean daytime BG was higher in those with hyperandrogenism compared with those without (115.2 mg/dL vs 104.4 mg/dL, p=0.04). No significant differences between groups were observed for mean 42-day BG, overnight BG, and percent time in, above, or below range. Conclusion:We demonstrated the feasibility of CGM to assess dysglycemia among individuals living with PCOS. We observed a significant difference in daytime BG between those with hyperandrogenism and those without. Further research is needed to determine how CGM could be incorporated into PCOS management. Presentation: Monday, July 14, 2025

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207