SUN-120 Nutritional Supplement Use Among Individuals with PCOS in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disclosure: S. Gill: None. H. Vanden Brink: None. R. Vettese: None. S. Virk: None. M. Bhogal: None. C. Song: None. J.L. Benham: None. Background: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common endocrine disorders that affects biologic females, with an estimated prevalence of 1.4 million Canadians. The first line recommendations for PCOS management focus on lifestyle including healthy eating and regular exercise. There is also growing literature on adjunct therapy, such as nutritional supplements to target PCOS symptoms. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the scope of nutrient supplementation use to manage PCOS symptoms in individuals within Canada. Objective: To estimate the prevalence and types of nutritional supplements used by individuals with PCOS, and to identify motivations for and barriers to supplement use among people with PCOS. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey distributed via Qualtrics from August 1 to October 16, 2024. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older with self-reported PCOS living in Canada. As part of a larger survey on PCOS management, participants were asked questions about supplement use. Descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentages were used to summarize the categorical survey responses. Results: Among 509 participants who met the inclusion criteria and completed the nutritional supplement section of the survey, 382 (74.5%) individuals reported using nutritional supplements for PCOS management, while 105 (20.5%) respondents had never used supplements for PCOS. Of the supplement users, 288 (75.4%) were using supplements at the time the survey was conducted. The most frequently used supplements included vitamin D (n= 295, 77.2%), magnesium (n=223, 58.4%), omega-3 fatty acids (n=186, 48.7%) and inositol (n=163, 42.7%). Motivations for taking supplements included to improve overall health (n=314, 82.2%), to increase energy level (n=255, 66.8%), to promote mental health/mood (n=226, 59.2%), and to lose weight (n=220, 57.6%). The most common reasons for not using supplements included lack of information related to which nutritional supplement(s) to use (n=74, 73.3%), how to take the supplement (e.g. how often, how much) (n=40, 39.6%) and lack of information on supplement safety (n=30, 29.7%). Conclusion: Most respondents with PCOS incorporate supplements as part of their PCOS management. The 2023 International Guideline for PCOS only provides evidence-based recommendations for one supplement (inositol), suggesting that research and increased community-level knowledge translation is needed to address the safety and efficacy of supplements in this patient population. Presentation: Sunday, July 13, 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".